Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case

“Mens Rea and Proximate Instigation Are Sine Qua Non for Section 108 BNS”, In a significant ruling on the scope of abetment of suicide under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 10/02/2026 granted regular bail to a woman accused of abetting her husband’s suicide, holding that “allegation of harassment of the deceased by the accused does not suffice” to attract Section 108 BNS in the absence of direct or indirect incitement.

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra ruled that the essential ingredients of instigation, intentional aid, and mens rea were not prima facie made out and reiterated the settled principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception.”

The petitioner, in custody for nearly seven months, was ordered to be released on regular bail, with liberty granted to the prosecution to seek cancellation if she is found involved in any subsequent offence.

The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 0126 dated 25.06.2025, registered under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Police Station Division ‘B’, Amritsar.

The FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant, Namberdar Ranjit Singh, cousin of the deceased Kartar Singh. It was alleged that Kartar Singh’s marriage with the petitioner Satnam Kaur was marred by matrimonial discord, leading to frequent quarrels.

On 21.06.2025, it was alleged that the petitioner and her sister misbehaved with the deceased by hurling abuses and assaulting him. The deceased thereafter left home and did not return. A missing report was lodged, and on 25.06.2025, his dead body was recovered from a canal near village Dhund. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, abetted the suicide of the deceased.

The petitioner and her son were arrested on the same day. Two additional accused were later nominated. Investigation qua the petitioner stood completed at the time of consideration of bail.

It was also noted that two co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail.

The central issue before the Court was whether the allegations in the FIR and material on record prima facie attracted Section 108 of the BNS, which corresponds to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, dealing with abetment of suicide.

Justice Manisha Batra meticulously examined the ingredients of abetment under Section 108 BNS read with Section 45 BNS, which is pari materia with Section 107 IPC. The Court observed:

“In order to bring a case within the provisions of Section 108 of BNS, undoubtedly, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by act of instigation and doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide.”

The Court further emphasized that the prosecution must establish “a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement by the accused in commission of suicide.”

Significantly, the Court held:

“Allegation of harassment of the deceased by the accused does not suffice. In the absence of any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to suicide, offence under Section 108 of BNS would not be considered to have been committed.”

On the essential requirement of mens rea, the Court clarified that to prove abetment, “it must be the state of mind of the accused to commit a particular crime that must also be visible so as to determine the culpability of his action.”

The Court categorically observed that “there must be some mens rea and some material on record to establish that he or she had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, the suicide by the victim was abetted.”

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Aranb Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 964. Referring to the apex court’s interpretation of Section 306 IPC, the High Court reiterated that “specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required.”

It was underscored that “the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is must for this particular offence.”

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that “at this stage, the element of mens rea of direct abetment, which is a sine qua non for attracting the offence, does not prima facie emerge from the record.”

The allegations were not to the effect that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide or that the harassment was of such nature that he was left with no option but to take the extreme step. Consequently, “prima facie offence under Section 108 of the BNS does not seem to be attracted in this case.”

Bail Jurisprudence: Pre-Trial Detention Not Punitive

Apart from examining the substantive offence, the Court also stressed established principles governing bail. The petitioner had been in custody since 25.06.2025, investigation was complete, and trial was expected to take considerable time.

Reaffirming constitutional safeguards against prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the Court observed that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception and pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing.”

The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing her custody and accordingly allowed the petition for regular bail, subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds.

However, the prosecution was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of subsequent involvement in any other criminal case.

The ruling reinforces the strict standards required to establish abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS, particularly in cases arising out of matrimonial discord. The High Court has made it clear that mere allegations of harassment or domestic quarrels, without specific instigation, proximate conduct, and demonstrable mens rea, cannot sustain a charge of abetment.

By harmonizing the interpretation of Section 108 BNS with established jurisprudence under Section 306 IPC, the Court has ensured continuity in legal principles while applying the new criminal law framework.

Date of Decision: 10/02/2026