Anticipatory bail granted to elderly relative where custodial interrogation is unnecessary for investigating alleged abetment of suicide.

The applicant, a 65-year-old woman and mother-in-law of the deceased (Yasmin Bee), sought anticipatory bail following the registration of Crime No. 146/2026 at Police Station Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam.

Yasmin Bee committed suicide by hanging on the night of February 18-19, 2026.

Allegations were made by the deceased’s relatives that the applicant taunted and harassed the deceased over her husband Irshad’s alcoholism and outstanding group loans.

The applicant contended she was falsely implicated, lived in separate accommodation, had no criminal record, and was currently undergoing the Iddat period following her husband’s death.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the accusations and her personal circumstances.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail.

The substantive offences alleged were under Section 108 (Abetment of suicide) and Section 3(5) (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court also relied on established bail principles concerning the necessity of custodial interrogation, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the socio-economic status of the accused.

The court examined the case diary and witness statements (Imran Shah, Razia Bi, and Amrin Bi), which prima facie suggested that the deceased’s frustration was primarily rooted in her husband’s alcoholism, his physical abuse, and the pressure of unpaid group loans.

The court found substance in the applicant's argument that she lived separately and was being implicated due to family frustrations.

It noted the applicant’s advanced age, her status as a homemaker, and her lack of prior criminal history.

The court determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary for the investigation and that there was no evidence suggesting the applicant would flee from justice or tamper with witnesses.

It concluded that incarceration would cause undue hardship and social humiliation without benefiting the investigation.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The holding was made subject to conditions: the applicant must cooperate with the investigation, refrain from committing further offences, and not influence or threaten witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless bail is cancelled due to a breach of conditions.