Monetary demands without proximate instigation or mens rea do not constitute abetment of suicide.

The applicant, a 68-year-old retired government accountant, sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 48 of 2026 involving the suicide of one Shivam Sharma.

The deceased’s brother alleged that the applicant and others had repeatedly demanded the return of an outstanding loan, using filthy language and visiting the deceased's home and workplace.

Following these demands, the deceased went missing and his body was subsequently found near a temple; witnesses suspected he consumed insecticide due to harassment.

The applicant moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that a demand for money does not constitute abetment.

1. Whether a demand for the repayment of an outstanding loan, in the absence of proximate instigation or mens rea to cause suicide, satisfies the ingredients of abetment under Section 108 of the BNS.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS considering his age, professional background, and lack of criminal antecedents.

The court applied Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding abetment of suicide, and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding anticipatory bail.

It relied on established 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.

The precedents collectively hold that mere harassment without a positive, proximate act showing mens rea to goad or instigate a person to commit suicide does not amount to abetment.

The court observed that the primary allegation against the applicant was the demand for outstanding money, which suggests an interest in recovery rather than an intent to cause death.

It noted that the prosecution failed to show any specific allegation that the applicant personally threatened the deceased with dire consequences in "close proximity" to the death.

Applying the rule from Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar, the court reasoned that harassment alone, without evidence of the accused's intent (mens rea) to abet suicide, does not meet the legal threshold for the offence.

Furthermore, the court found that because the applicant is a 68-year-old retired government employee with no criminal record, custodial interrogation was unnecessary and he posed no flight risk or threat to the investigation.

It held that the demand for money did not prima facie constitute abetment as defined by the BNS and the relevant Supreme Court precedents.

The court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with witnesses.

This order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial.