Bail granted where prosecution materials failed to establish instigation constituting abetment of suicide.

The two applicants, Mamta Bai Dhruw and Chumman Kumar Dhruw, were arrested in connection with Crime No. 120/2026 registered at Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, for offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

Mamta Bai Dhruw was the wife of the deceased, Santosh Kumar Dhruw. On 14 June 2026, Santosh Kumar Dhruw allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself in a forest. A merg inquiry was initially registered under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), during which a suicide note was recovered. On the basis of the suicide note, the FIR was subsequently registered against both applicants.

The applicants contended that there was no nexus between the suicide and their alleged conduct, that they had not instigated the deceased, that the FIR was lodged after approximately 25 days, and that the charge-sheet had not been filed. They had remained in custody since 21 and 22 July 2026, respectively.

The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicants were involved in an extramarital relationship and had instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

Whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS against the applicants?

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the absence of material showing instigation, the delay in registration of the FIR, their period of custody, and the non-filing of the charge-sheet?

The Court considered the applicants’ first bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant regular bail.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 108 of the BNS, concerning abetment of suicide, read with Section 3(5) of the BNS regarding acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The Court proceeded on the principle that, for an allegation of abetment of suicide, the material must disclose a proximate and prima facie link between the accused’s intentional instigation or conduct and the deceased’s suicide; the mere existence of an extramarital relationship or the deceased’s knowledge of it, without material showing instigation, was insufficient at the bail stage.

The Court also considered the applicant’s custody, the stage of investigation, the likely duration of trial, and the absence of a filed charge-sheet as relevant bail considerations.

The Court found from the witness statements and the FIR that, although the deceased allegedly became depressed after learning of the relationship between the applicants, there was no material establishing that either applicant had instigated him to commit suicide.

Thus, the prosecution material did not prima facie demonstrate the necessary nexus between the applicants’ conduct and the suicide so as to justify continued detention for the alleged offence under Section 108 of the BNS.

The Court additionally noted that the FIR had been lodged after a delay of approximately 25 days, the charge-sheet had not been filed, and the applicants had been in custody since July 2026. Since the trial was likely to take time, these factors weighed in favour of granting bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, refraining from seeking adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at key stages including opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statements, and compliance with the consequences prescribed in case of absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.