Absence of specific instigation or proximate act precludes abetment of suicide in loan recovery harassment cases.

The applicant filed his first anticipatory bail application following the registration of Crime No. 88/2026 at P.S. Morar for the offence of abetment of suicide.

On September 15, 2025, one Ramesh Singh Parmar died after consuming poison.

An inquiry (Marg No. 51/2025) led to the recovery of a suicide note alleging that the applicant and others were harassing the deceased for loan recovery.

The applicant contended that the allegations were vague and that statements from the deceased's children indicated threats were directed at them, not the deceased.

1. Whether the allegations in the suicide note and the surrounding circumstances constitute a prima facie case of "abetment" under the relevant penal provisions to warrant the denial of anticipatory bail.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of anticipatory bail.

It considered the substantive law under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which defines abetment of suicide.

The court relied on the established legal principle that mere harassment for loan recovery, without specific acts of instigation, provocation, or intentional aid that proximately drive a person to suicide, does not satisfy the requirements of abetment.

The Court examined the material on record and noted that the prosecution's case rested largely on a handwritten note which the applicant argued contained "vague and omnibus" allegations.

The Court observed that for an offence under Section 108 of the BNS to be made out, there must be a direct or proximate act of instigation or intentional aid.

In this instance, the Court highlighted that the alleged threats were purportedly extended to the deceased's children rather than the deceased himself, raising doubts about direct instigation.

Furthermore, the Court found no evidence suggesting that the applicant was a flight risk or would evade justice, making the custodial interrogation unnecessary at this stage.

The application was allowed, and it was directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, non-tampering of evidence, and seeking court permission before leaving the country.