General harassment allegations without a proximate link to suicide do not establish abetment.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 2–4, sought anticipatory bail in Kudachi Police Station Crime No. 176/2026, registered under Sections 85 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The deceased married accused No. 1 in 2024.

The complaint alleged that, after an initially cordial period, the accused subjected her to physical and mental harassment.

She went missing on 10 August 2026, and her body was found in the Krishna River on 12 August 2026.

The petitioners denied harassment and argued that the deceased had died by suicide.

The State opposed bail, citing a prima facie case and risk of witness tampering.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the offences alleged under Sections 85 and 108 of the BNS

Whether the allegations against the petitioners disclosed, prima facie, a sufficient connection between their conduct and the deceased’s suicide to justify refusing anticipatory bail

The Court considered Sections 85 and 108 of the BNS and the principles governing abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which it treated as corresponding to Section 108 of the BNS

It stated that abetment requires active instigation or aid and a direct and proximate link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide; mere allegations or insults, without evidence of such a link or an intention to drive the victim to suicide, are insufficient

Relying on *Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh*, (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Court noted that words spoken in anger or emotion, without intending their consequences, do not by themselves amount to instigation

The Court found that the material, at the prima facie stage, contained only a general allegation that the petitioners had harassed the deceased and did not establish the required direct and proximate connection between their conduct and her suicide

It also noted that accused No. 2 was the deceased’s mother-in-law and accused Nos. 3 and 4 were the brothers of accused No. 1, and that the principal allegation was directed against accused No. 1.

Having considered the nature and gravity of the offence and the petitioners’ antecedents, the Court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to bail.

These included executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum, attending court as directed, cooperating with the trial, refraining from witness interference or similar offences, and reporting to the police weekly for six months or until the final report is filed, whichever occurs earlier

The Court stated that its observations were confined to disposal of the bail petition and that breach of the conditions could lead the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail