Misuse of official authority and continuous intimidation preclude anticipatory bail for abetment of suicide.

The applicant, a Constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police, filed a first application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

He was charged under Sections 108 (abetment of suicide) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleged that on 12.12.2025, the deceased, Mrityunjay Chauhan, discovered the applicant hiding in the kitchen of co-accused Preeti Jadon (a Sub-Inspector)

The applicant allegedly assaulted the deceased while the co-accused attempted to fire a pistol and threatened him

The deceased committed suicide on 15.12.2025

The applicant argued that the case was fabricated, he had no mens rea, and that the deceased had a history of criminal conduct

He further noted that the co-accused had received interim protection from the Supreme Court

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS given the gravity of the allegations

2. Whether the alleged acts of assault and intimidation by a police official, followed by the victim's suicide three days later, prima facie constitute abetment under Section 108 of the BNS

The Court primarily considered Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding anticipatory bail, and Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, regarding abetment of suicide

It relied on Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka, Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

These precedents establish that for an offence of abetment of suicide, there must be a positive act of instigation or intentional aid, a clear mens rea, and circumstances leaving the deceased with no option but to end their life

The Court distinguished the present case from the cited precedents, noting that the allegations were not limited to personal discord or emotional distress but involved specific acts of physical assault, criminal intimidation, and misuse of official police position

The Court observed that the applicant’s status as a public servant weighed against him, as he allegedly used his authority to instill fear in the deceased, suggesting no legal recourse was available

The Court found a prima facie nexus between the conduct on 12.12.2025 and the suicide on 15.12.2025, supported by CDRs, tower locations, and witness statements

It held that custodial interrogation was necessary for the recovery of the weapon and to prevent the applicant—an influential police official—from tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses

It held that the cumulative effect of the allegations, the role of the applicant as a police official, and the necessity of custodial interrogation disentitled him from discretionary relief

The Court further clarified that the interim protection granted to the co-accused by the Supreme Court did not serve as an absolute precedent for the applicant’s release