Unverified suicide-note authorship and parity with a co-accused justified anticipatory bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 267/2026, registered for offences under Sections 108, 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Sanjay Ojha, died by suicide on 4 August 2026 and that a suicide note and statements by family members implicated the applicant and two co-accused in harassment arising from a failed land transaction and an alleged advance payment.

The applicant denied the allegations, disputed the evidentiary status of the suicide note, and relied on an order granting anticipatory bail to a similarly situated co-accused.

The State opposed bail, citing the allegations and the applicant’s criminal antecedent.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the case, including the alleged suicide note and the dispute over the land transaction.

Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a similarly situated co-accused supported granting the same relief to the applicant.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the procedural basis for seeking anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 108, 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In assessing the application, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the circumstances surrounding the alleged suicide, the status of the handwriting examination of the suicide note, and parity with a co-accused who had already received anticipatory bail.

No other precedent or specific bail doctrine was cited.

The Court treated the dispute as arising from a money transaction connected with the proposed sale of land and held that the dispute, by itself, could not be regarded as the sole cause of the deceased’s suicide; the question of instigation remained for trial.

It also noted that, although more than a month had elapsed since the incident, the suicide note’s handwriting had not yet been proved by an expert.

Given these circumstances and the grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused whose case the Court considered similar, the Court found it appropriate to grant relief without expressing an opinion on the merits.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, cooperation with a fair trial, appearance before the trial court as required, submission of identification materials, and refraining from similar offences.