### Absence of mens rea or proximate positive action precludes charge of abetment to suicide.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 30/2026 involving the suicide of one Kailash Parmar.

Kailash consumed poison on October 24, 2025, and allegedly told his family that the applicants were harassing him over money and land transactions.

The applicants contended that the deceased had previously executed valid, registered sale deeds in favor of the applicants' families between 2022 and 2025, and the criminal charges were a pretext to avoid further contractual obligations.

The prosecution opposed the bail, citing oral dying declarations made to the deceased's wife and son regarding harassment and non-payment for land.

1. Whether the allegations of harassment and money demands, without evidence of a proximate positive act to instigate suicide, satisfy the requirements for "abetment" under the law.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Court applied Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding abetment of suicide.

It relied on established precedents including *Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.* (AIR 2002 SC 199), *Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal* (2010 1 SCC 707), and *Abhinav Mohal Delkar v. State of Maharashtra* (2025 INSC 990), which hold that mere harassment, non-payment, or a demand for money—absent a positive proximate action showing *mens rea* to instigate suicide—does not constitute abetment.

The procedural power for anticipatory bail was exercised under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.

The Court observed that while the deceased’s family alleged harassment over money, there was no evidence of direct communication between applicants No. 2, 3, or 4 and the deceased in close proximity to the death.

Regarding applicant No. 1 (Kanhaiyalal), the allegation was a demand for money a day prior; however, the Court noted that the veracity of whether this constituted instigation required trial.

The Court found prima facie substance in the applicants' claim that the dispute was civil/contractual in nature.

Since the applicants had no criminal antecedents, were elderly (Applicant No. 1 is 75) or agriculturists, and there was no risk of flight or tampering with evidence, custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary.

The application was allowed, and the Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with separate sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation and non-tampering of evidence.

This order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial.