### Absence of proximate mens rea and direct communication precludes charge of abetment to suicide.

The applicants, Shivnarayan (55) and Rohit (31), sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 30 of 2026 for alleged abetment of suicide.

The deceased, Kailash, consumed poison on October 24, 2025, and allegedly informed his family that he was being harassed by the applicants and others regarding land transactions and money demands.

The applicants contended they were falsely implicated to avoid the execution of sale deeds following legitimate land transfers conducted between 2022 and 2025.

The State opposed bail, citing the deceased’s oral dying declaration and the applicants' criminal antecedents, though the applicants clarified these resulted in acquittals or compromises.

1. Whether the allegations regarding harassment over money and land disputes, without evidence of direct provocation in close proximity to the death, satisfy the legal requirements for abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, considering their status as agriculturists and the nature of the evidence.

The court applied Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

It relied on established precedents including *Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.* (2002), *Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal* (2010), *Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra* (2020), and *Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra* (2025), which collectively establish that mere harassment, non-payment, or demand of money without a positive proximate act and clear *mens rea* to instigate suicide does not constitute abetment.

The court observed that while the deceased’s family alleged harassment over money, there was no allegation that the current applicants directly communicated with or threatened the deceased in immediate proximity to his death.

The primary allegation of a direct threat involved a third party, Kanhaiyalal, a day prior.

The court noted that the land transactions appeared documented and mutated, lending prima facie substance to the defense's argument of false implication.

Applying the cited precedents, the court reasoned that the alleged "conduct" did not immediately manifest the requisite *mens rea* for abetment at this stage.

Given the applicants' socio-economic status as agriculturists and the lack of substantial criminal history (following past acquittals), the court found no risk of flight or evidence tampering.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with separate sureties.

The grant of bail was made subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, non-commission of similar offenses, and no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial.