Mere harassment for debt recovery without proximate instigation does not constitute abetment of suicide.

The applicant filed a first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

He was arrested on February 14, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 48 of 2026 for the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Shivam, owed money to the applicant and others.

On February 12, 2026, the applicant and co-accused allegedly visited the deceased's house and godown, using abusive language and demanding repayment

Shivam was found dead the following morning; it was suspected he consumed insecticide due to harassment regarding the outstanding loan

1. Whether the mere demand for repayment of an outstanding loan and subsequent harassment constitutes "abetment" under Section 108 of the BNS for the purpose of denying bail

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the progress of the investigation and the lack of specific allegations of instigation in close proximity to the death

Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the grant of regular bail and Section 108 of the BNS regarding abetment of suicide

established judicial principles which hold that mere harassment without a positive, proximate action showing mens rea to goad or instigate an individual to commit suicide does not amount to abetment

The court cited several Supreme Court precedents, including Arjunan v. State (2019) 3 SCC 315, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. AIR 2002 SC 199, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 990, to emphasize that the accused must have intended to provoke the deceased into taking their own life

The Court observed that the primary allegation against the applicant was the demand for outstanding money, which suggests the applicant was interested in recovery rather than the death of the deceased

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of any specific threat of dire consequences or "goading" by the applicant in close proximity to the suicide

Applying the cited precedents, the Court found prima facie merit in the argument that harassment for debt recovery does not automatically satisfy the mens rea required for abetment

The Court considered the applicant’s background: he is a 28-year-old businessman with no criminal antecedents and has family roots, reducing the risk of fleeing or recidivism

Since the investigation was largely complete and custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, the Court found no compelling reason to continue his incarceration

The Court held that the complicity of the applicant would be a matter of trial evidence, but for the purpose of bail, the lack of proximate instigation favored the applicant

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular attendance at hearings and non-interference with evidence or witnesses