Anticipatory bail granted absent evidence of direct instigation or proximate act in suicide cases.

The applicant, Sachin Khare, filed his first anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 168/2026 for an offence under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on March 13, 2026, the deceased, Sanat Kumar Kashyap, committed suicide by hanging.

It was further alleged that the applicant had threatened the deceased via mobile phone, suspecting that the deceased had assisted the applicant’s sister in eloping with another individual.

The prosecution's case relied primarily on call logs and a viral video.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, had previously been arrested for an offence under Section 204 of the BNS in the same context, and that no suicide note existed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the allegations of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS.

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning the abetment of suicide.

For a charge of abetment to stand, there must be evidence of direct instigation or a proximate act by the accused that led the deceased to commit suicide.

The Court evaluated the materials on record and observed that while the applicant allegedly pressurized the deceased via phone to reveal the whereabouts of his sister, there was a lack of evidence demonstrating any "direct instigation" or "proximate act" attributable to the applicant that could be legally construed as driving the deceased to take his own life.

The Court noted that the prosecution's case rested largely on call logs and a video, rather than a suicide note or clear evidence of coercion.

The Court took into account that the applicant is a permanent resident, minimizing the risk of him absconding, and acknowledged that the investigation and subsequent trial would likely be time-consuming.

The Court found the facts and circumstances favorable for the protection of the applicant's liberty pending trial.

The Court held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to several conditions: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) non-prejudicial conduct toward the trial; (c) regular appearance before the trial court; (d) submission of Aadhaar and photographic verification; and (e) abstention from similar future offences.