Multiple injuries and evidence tampering preclude bail in abetment of suicide involving live-in partners.

The Petitioner, a practicing lawyer, was in a live-in relationship with the deceased

On the day of the incident, the informant (the deceased's uncle) was notified that the deceased had collapsed; upon arriving at the hospital, he found her dead with a cut mark on her neck

Although the case was initially registered under Section 103 of the BNS (murder), the police filed a charge sheet under Section 108 of the BNS (abetment of suicide)

The Post-Mortem report identified eight external injuries, including pressure abrasions on the neck and multiple contusions on the chest, palms, arms, and thighs, which the investigation suggested were indicative of physical assault

Procedural facts revealed that the residence's CCTV system was switched off during the occurrence, and three broken parts of a mobile phone were recovered from a dustbin

The Petitioner sought bail during the pendency of the trial

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of the proceedings

2. Whether there exists a prima facie case against the Petitioner for commission of an offence under Section 108 of the BNS despite the autopsy surgeon's opinion attributing death to asphyxia from hanging

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) governing the High Court's power to grant bail

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

The Court adhered to the principle that while a meticulous analysis of evidence is avoided at the bail stage, the court must weigh the gravity of the offence and the existence of a prima facie case

It further distinguished the precedent Prakash and others v. State of Maharashtra and another (2024 INSC 1020), establishing that precedents regarding the quashing of charges or discharge are not directly applicable to bail proceedings when the factual circumstances, specifically the presence of physical injuries, differ significantly

The Court reasoned that the request for bail could not be considered in isolation from the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death.

Although the Petitioner argued he did not instigate the suicide, the Court pointed to the PM report’s documentation of eight physical injuries which strongly suggested physical assault prior to death

The Court emphasized that the Petitioner and deceased were cohabiting at the time of the incident and noted that the intentional deactivation of the CCTV system during the occurrence, coupled with the discovery of destroyed mobile phones, raised a "prima facie suspicion" against the Petitioner

The Court found the facts of the present case distinguishable from the Prakash case because the deceased herein sustained numerous pre-death injuries

It concluded that since the investigation into the final cause of death was still pending a final opinion from forensic experts and the allegations involved the death of a young woman in a live-in relationship under suspicious circumstances, the materials on record established a reasonable allegation that precluded the grant of bail

The Court rejected the bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS and disposed of the petition