Illicit marital relations without specific intent to instigate suicide do not constitute abetment under BNS.

The applicant, Rashmi Kanojia, sought regular bail following her arrest on April 11, 2026, in connection with the suicide of her husband, Deepak Verma, on January 7, 2026

The prosecution alleged that the deceased committed suicide by hanging due to mental harassment and devastation caused by the applicant’s alleged extra-marital relationship

The deceased’s family claimed he was frustrated by the applicant's social media communications and misconduct

The applicant argued she was being falsely implicated and that WhatsApp chats showed she was actually counseling the deceased against suicide

Investigation was completed, and a final report (charge sheet) was filed prior to this application

1. Whether the mere existence of an extra-marital relationship, without specific mens rea to instigate suicide, constitutes abetment under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS)

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC) considering her status as a mother of a minor and the completion of the investigation

Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding abetment of suicide

Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka (2017), which established that a spouse’s illicit relationship, absent evidence of active instigation or mens rea to cause suicide, does not satisfy the criteria for abetment

Siddaling v. State (2018) regarding the mental process of instigation

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

The court examined the proximity between the applicant’s conduct and the deceased's death, noting that while the deceased’s family alleged harassment over the applicant's infidelity, the defense produced mobile chats suggesting the applicant was attempting to counsel the deceased

The court reasoned that under the established precedents (Prakash; Balaji Jaiswal), the legal threshold for "abetment" requires more than just domestic discord or illicit relations; it requires a proactive mental process of instigation

Given that the investigation was complete, the final report was submitted, and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the court found no immediate necessity for continued incarceration

The court also highlighted the applicant's socio-economic status as a 30-year-old with a private job and a 6-year-old minor child, concluding there was no flight risk or likelihood of tampering with evidence

The court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, subject to specific conditions including regular court appearance and a prohibition against tampering with evidence