Abetment of suicide requires clear instigation or intentional aid with a direct, proximate nexus.

The applicant was arrested on 29 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 94/2026 registered at Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, for an offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), corresponding to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The deceased, Sharda Banjara, was allegedly in a love relationship with the applicant and was residing with the informant after the death of her parents. On 19 April 2026, she was found hanging from a wooden structure with a plastic rope and was alleged to have committed suicide.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant demanded money from her and subjected her to physical and mental harassment, thereby driving her to suicide.

The applicant denied the allegations, asserting that they were vague and unsupported by specific details or electronic evidence, and contended that the deceased’s alleged suicide note did not name him or attribute any act of harassment or instigation to him.

The charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take time.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 108 of the BNS.

2. Whether the material on record disclosed a clear act of instigation, intentional aid, or a positive act having a direct and proximate nexus with the deceased’s suicide so as to justify continued incarceration.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offence was under Section 108 of the BNS, corresponding to Section 306 of the IPC, concerning abetment of suicide.

The Court reiterated that abetment of suicide requires a clear act of instigation, intentional aid, or a positive act having a direct and proximate nexus with the commission of suicide; vague allegations, without a specific act of instigation or abetment, are insufficient at the bail stage.

The Court also considered the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial as relevant bail considerations.

The Court found no direct or specific allegation showing that the applicant had instigated, aided, or intentionally provoked the deceased to commit suicide.

The alleged demands for money and physical or mental harassment lacked sufficient specificity, and the deceased’s statement did not attribute any particular act of instigation to the applicant.

In light of the absence of a clear and proximate nexus between the applicant’s alleged conduct and the suicide, together with the filing of the charge-sheet, lack of prior criminal antecedents, and the applicant’s custody since 29 May 2026, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted, particularly since the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning his absence or misuse of bail, and to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Court for compliance.