Regular bail granted for abetment of suicide post-charge-sheet filing and absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Mahendra Kumar Katle, was married to the deceased, Anjali Katle.

On June 9, 2025, the deceased committed suicide by hanging at the applicant's residence

Based on an oral report by the deceased’s mother, the police registered an offense under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and arrested the applicant on June 10, 2025

A charge-sheet was filed on August 8, 2025, and the case was committed for trial as Sessions Trial No. 68/2025

The applicant moved for regular bail, arguing that there was no direct evidence of abetment, the trial was delayed due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, and his continued detention since June 2025 was unjustified

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of his period of incarceration and the status of the investigation

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court’s power to grant regular bail

The substantive offense invoked was Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to the abetment of suicide

Additionally, the court referenced procedural safeguards and consequences for the misuse of bail under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS

The court reasoned that because the charge-sheet had already been filed, the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses was significantly reduced

It noted that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and had already been in custody for nearly ten months (since June 10, 2025)

The court further observed that the trial was likely to be prolonged, specifically citing the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination as a factor contributing to the delay

Weighing the nature of the allegations against the applicant’s personal circumstances and the lack of immediate prospect of trial conclusion, the court found it appropriate to exercise its discretion in favor of liberty

The holding was conditional upon the applicant not seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, appearing personally on key trial dates (framing of charges, recording of statements), and adhering to procedural mandates under the BNSS to prevent the abuse of the liberty granted