Mere harassment without a positive proximate act showing intent to abet suicide does not constitute abetment.

The applicant, Kajal Bai (the maternal aunt-in-law of the deceased), filed a first application for regular bail following her arrest on February 18, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Aneesha (alias Anita), committed suicide by hanging due to persistent harassment over petty domestic issues by the applicant and other family members.

Specifically, it was alleged that an altercation occurred regarding the deceased’s sister-in-law, Sapna, during which threats were made against the deceased; she committed suicide the following day.

The applicant was charged under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

1. Whether the allegations of harassment and the circumstances leading to the suicide prima facie constitute "abetment" under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, pending trial.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) for the grant of bail.

Regarding the substantive offence, the court applied Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 (Abetment of suicide).

It relied on the legal principles established in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. (2010) 1 SCC 750, M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 990, which hold that mere harassment without a positive, proximate act or mens rea to instigate suicide does not amount to abetment.

The court examined the case diary and noted that the allegations of harassment against the applicant were "general and omnibus".

It observed that the State could not demonstrate any specific allegation that the applicant personally threatened the deceased with dire consequences in close proximity to the death.

The court reasoned that for an offence of abetment to stand, there must be evidence of instigation or goading that shows mens rea.

Furthermore, the court considered that the applicant is a 40-year-old homemaker with no criminal antecedents and deep family roots, making her a low flight risk.

Since the investigation was nearing completion and custodial interrogation was no longer required, the court found no compelling reason to continue her incarceration.

It held that the complicity of the applicant is a matter for trial and that she met the criteria for bail given her socio-economic status and lack of recidivism.

The release was conditioned upon a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount, alongside standard conditions to ensure her presence during trial and to prevent tampering with evidence.