Harassment without positive proximate action or mens rea to abet suicide warrants grant of bail.

The applicant, Arvind Singh Rathore, sought a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on February 10, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 13/2025 for an offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (abetment of suicide).

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Anita, who lived with the applicant as his wife, consumed poison on December 7, 2023, due to alleged harassment and quarrels initiated by the applicant.

A video recorded by the deceased alleging harassment was recovered.

The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits on July 30, 2025.

Since then, the material prosecution witnesses—the father and sister of the deceased—have been examined.

Out of seventeen witnesses, only two have been examined to date.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the change in circumstances, specifically the examination of material witnesses and the prolonged duration of custody.

2. Whether the allegations of harassment, in the absence of proximate action showing mens rea, satisfy the requirements for abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 regarding abetment of suicide.

Established legal principles from the Supreme Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (AIR 2002 SC 199), Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal ((2010) 1 SCC 707), and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020 SCC Online SC 964), which collectively hold that mere harassment without a positive, proximate act showing mens rea to abet suicide does not constitute the offence of abetment.

The Court evaluated the application based on the "change in circumstances" following the rejection of the first bail plea.

It noted that the material witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) had already been examined, significantly reducing the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing the case.

The applicant had shifted to a different village a month prior to the death, suggesting a lack of proximate dispute.

Applying the precedents cited, the Court observed that the question of whether the applicant’s conduct amounted to abetment is a matter for trial, and the defense's contention regarding the lack of mens rea carried prima facie merit.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a laborer with family dependencies, and has already undergone over a year of incarceration while the trial is expected to take significant time to conclude.

The Court held that continued incarceration was unnecessary as there was no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or recidivism.

The bail is subject to standard conditions, including regular attendance at trial, non-interference with witnesses, and compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the examination of witnesses.