Bail granted where alleged harassment did not prima facie establish clear, active, or direct instigation to suicide.

The applicant, Piyush Singh, sought regular bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2026, arising from an FIR dated 05.04.2026.

He was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 85 read with 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The FIR was initially registered under Section 80(2) of the BNS against the applicant, his mother, brother, sister-in-law and nephew; during investigation, all except the applicant were exonerated

The deceased was the applicant’s wife, who allegedly died by hanging.

The defence relied on her alleged mental stress arising from a departmental inquiry and a workplace theft-related FIR, her history of epilepsy, medical statements indicating depression and suicidal thoughts, Google-search history, WhatsApp chats, family photographs, CCTV footage showing normal domestic interactions, and the absence of any forceful act in the footage of the suicide

The prosecution and complainant alleged that the applicant harassed the deceased, threatened divorce, isolated her from her family, abused her through voice recordings, and subjected her to mental torture.

They also relied on an abrasion noted in the post-mortem report as evidence of physical violence immediately preceding the suicide

The investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and the applicant had remained in custody since 07.04.2026

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail pending trial in a prosecution under Sections 85 read with 108 of the BNS, particularly when the prosecution relied on alleged harassment, electronic evidence and a physical injury to establish abetment of suicide?

Whether continued custodial detention was necessary after completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet, having regard to the competing defence and prosecution material?

The Court applied Sections 85 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Section 108, concerning abetment of suicide, requires material indicating a clear, active or direct act of instigation that left the deceased with no reasonable alternative but to take her own life

At the bail stage, the Court must not conduct a definitive evaluation of the evidence or express an opinion on the merits; it must balance the accused’s right to liberty against the seriousness of the allegations and the interests of the prosecution

Completion of investigation, filing of the charge sheet, the accused’s period of custody, the prospect of a prolonged trial, and the absence of any further requirement for custodial interrogation are relevant considerations in determining entitlement to bail

The Court treated the alleged voice recordings, WhatsApp conversations, physical abrasion and other evidence as matters for trial rather than conclusive proof at the bail stage

Although the prosecution asserted that these materials established a continuous chain of harassment, the Court found that the requirement of clear, active or direct instigation under Section 108 could not be conclusively determined without a full evidentiary assessment.

Conversely, the medical statements indicating chronic epilepsy, depression and suicidal thoughts, the deceased’s alleged workplace-related mental stress, and the Google-search history constituted circumstances supporting the defence version, though the Court expressly left their evidentiary value open for trial

The Court also considered that the initial dowry-death allegation had been dropped, the other accused had been exonerated, the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 07.04.2026, and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Since the trial was likely to take considerable time, the balance of liberty and the interests of justice favoured release on bail

Piyush Singh was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court

The conditions required him to attend every trial date without unnecessary adjournments, surrender his passport, if any, within three days of release, refrain from threatening the informant or family members, and not tamper with evidence

The trial court was directed to proceed independently and was not to be influenced by the observations made in the bail order; breach of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail