The Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors v. State of Haryana

2. Heard Sri Raja Ram Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 108 of BNS, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

5. Learned counsel has next stated that the allegations are per se false. The applicant is stated to have been involved in flesh trade, as such deceased has committed suicide out of remorse. Even the said suicide note indicates towards the said fact. It is further stated that if the allegations, as made in the suicide note and the FIR, are considered to be true, they cannot be found aggravated enough for the deceased person to commit suicide. There is no overt act assigned to the applicant.

6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.07.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 2 BAIL No. 30710 of 2025

7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a suicide note of the deceased person whereby he has stated that he is committing suicide owing to the said bad character of the applicant, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. The Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 observed:- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of 3 BAIL No. 30710 of 2025 conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Kapoori, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 4 BAIL No. 30710 of 2025

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 9, 2025 Sumit S (Krishan Pahal,J.)

2. Heard Sri Raja Ram Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 108 of BNS, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

5. Learned counsel has next stated that the allegations are per se false. The applicant is stated to have been involved in flesh trade, as such deceased has committed suicide out of remorse. Even the said suicide note indicates towards the said fact. It is further stated that if the allegations, as made in the suicide note and the FIR, are considered to be true, they cannot be found aggravated enough for the deceased person to commit suicide. There is no overt act assigned to the applicant.

6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.07.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 2 BAIL No. 30710 of 2025

7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a suicide note of the deceased person whereby he has stated that he is committing suicide owing to the said bad character of the applicant, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. The Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 observed:- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of 3 BAIL No. 30710 of 2025 conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Kapoori, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 4 BAIL No. 30710 of 2025

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 9, 2025 Sumit S (Krishan Pahal,J.)