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

: Kamlakar Pal, Sakshi Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Kamlakar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shushil Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ajit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2024, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the deceased person is stated to have been entered into illicit relationship with wife of the applicant and as such the applicant and his wife are stated to have been abets the deceased to commit suicide, who committed suicide within the precincts of the house of the applicant in the night of 18.05.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by 15 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that there is no overt act has been assigned to the applicant. The only evidence come up against the applicant, is the statement of Rohit Yadav, who informed the fact that he was told by the deceased person that he has been teased, tormented and 2 BAIL No. 30633 of 2025 blackmailed by the applicant and his wife that either he would commit suicide or cause the murder of the applicant and his wife. The said statement does not fall within the category of Section 108 BNS and as such there is no overt act assigned to the applicant or having forced the deceased to commit suicide. Section 108 BNS can only be attracted if the deceased person has been left with no other option but to commit suicide.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

04.06.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the delay in lodging the FIR stands explained on the fact that the informant went to his village and after conducting last rites of the deceased person and even the other rituals, he has returned and instituted an FIR and 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 3 BAIL No. 30633 of 2025 to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to 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 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, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is delayed by 15 days, there is no overt act assigned to the applicant having abets the deceased to commit suicide and without expressing any opinion on the merits 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- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra 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 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for 4 BAIL No. 30633 of 2025 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 #Vik/- (Krishan Pahal,J.) VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Kamlakar Pal, Sakshi Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Kamlakar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shushil Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ajit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2024, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the deceased person is stated to have been entered into illicit relationship with wife of the applicant and as such the applicant and his wife are stated to have been abets the deceased to commit suicide, who committed suicide within the precincts of the house of the applicant in the night of 18.05.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by 15 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that there is no overt act has been assigned to the applicant. The only evidence come up against the applicant, is the statement of Rohit Yadav, who informed the fact that he was told by the deceased person that he has been teased, tormented and 2 BAIL No. 30633 of 2025 blackmailed by the applicant and his wife that either he would commit suicide or cause the murder of the applicant and his wife. The said statement does not fall within the category of Section 108 BNS and as such there is no overt act assigned to the applicant or having forced the deceased to commit suicide. Section 108 BNS can only be attracted if the deceased person has been left with no other option but to commit suicide.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

04.06.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the delay in lodging the FIR stands explained on the fact that the informant went to his village and after conducting last rites of the deceased person and even the other rituals, he has returned and instituted an FIR and 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 3 BAIL No. 30633 of 2025 to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to 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 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, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is delayed by 15 days, there is no overt act assigned to the applicant having abets the deceased to commit suicide and without expressing any opinion on the merits 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- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra 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 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for 4 BAIL No. 30633 of 2025 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 #Vik/- (Krishan Pahal,J.) VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad