### Refusal to Marry and Silence on Chats Do Not Constitute Abetment to Suicide Under Section 306 IPC

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 503/2025 registered under Sections 306/34 IPC at PS Punjabi Bagh.

On May 9, 2023, the complainant’s daughter committed suicide, leaving notes alleging the applicant misled her with marriage promises for two years, established physical relations, and later withdrew under family pressure.

Post-mortem reports confirmed death by hanging, and FSL reports confirmed the notes were in the deceased's handwriting.

The FIR was registered two years later, on August 13, 2025, following an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The prosecution alleged the applicant refused to speak with the deceased on the day of the incident and failed to produce his mobile phone during investigation.

1. Whether the applicant’s refusal to marry or lack of response to messages constitutes "instigation" or "abetment" under Section 306 IPC sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.

2. Whether the applicant's alleged non-cooperation (failure to provide a 'desirable' answer or a mobile phone) is a sufficient ground for the rejection of bail.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding anticipatory bail.

It also applied Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) concerning abetment of suicide.

It relied on *Kamruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka* and *Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny vs. State of Punjab & Anr.*, which establish that a mere refusal to marry, in the absence of a positive or active act of instigation and clear *mens rea*, does not constitute abetment to suicide.

The court reasoned that the prosecution's case rests primarily on the deceased's "singular version" in the suicide notes, which lacks credible substantiation of an active link to the applicant’s conduct.

Examining the WhatsApp exchanges, the court found the applicant’s failure to reply to texts did not amount to an untoward act or a direct/proximate link to the commission of suicide.

Regarding investigation, the court noted that the applicant had joined the proceedings twice.

It held that the prosecution's dissatisfaction with the "desirability" of the applicant's responses or the non-production of a handset are not, by themselves, sufficient grounds to curtail liberty through the denial of bail, especially when the prosecution maintains the right to take other legal steps for recovery.

The application was allowed, granting the applicant bail in the event of arrest upon a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000.

Relief was subject to conditions including surrendering his passport, joining the investigation as required, and not leaving Delhi without court permission.