1. Accused charged with abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code — Application for anticipatory bail. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Archana – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15433 of 2024]
Decided On : 02-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR Mr. Pravin Ashok Nemade, Adv. Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Subodh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satyam Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR Mr. Pravin Ashok Nemade, Adv. Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Subodh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satyam Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Bail in anticipation of arrest is granted when custodial interrogation is not warranted, emphasizing the importance of evidence in abetment of suicide cases.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 r/w Section 34 - Bail in anticipation of arrest - High Court rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail concerning the abetment of suicide - The appellant claimed the deceased was illiterate, raising doubts about the authenticity of the suicide note - Custodial interrogation not warranted. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(B) Bail - Conditions - Appellant to be released on bail if arrested, with terms to be fixed by trial court - Observations made do not constitute findings on merits. (Paras 7, 10)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenged the rejection of anticipatory bail, questioning the authenticity of the suicide note and asserting willingness to cooperate with the investigation. (Para 5 )
3. The court noted the suicide note is in police custody, eliminating tampering risks, and the investigating officer had not yet called the appellant for interrogation. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Custodial interrogation is not warranted when evidence is secured and the accused is willing to join the investigation. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions. (Para 7 , 11 )
6. When is custodial interrogation considered unnecessary for an accused seeking anticipatory bail?
Custodial interrogation is not warranted when material evidence, such as a suicide note, is already in the custody of the investigating officer, thereby eliminating the risk of tampering, and the accused has demonstrated a willingness to join the investigation. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Does the grant of anticipatory bail imply a finding on the merits of the criminal case?
No, observations made by the court during the grant of bail are not to be treated as findings on the merits of the case. (Para 10 )
8. What conditions are typically imposed when granting anticipatory bail to ensure investigation integrity?
The accused must join the investigation as required, cooperate in the trial, and refrain from inducing, threatening, or promising any person to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the police or the court. (Para 8 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By the impugned order dated 8th August, 2024, the High Court has rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest.
3. The appellant figures as an accused in Crime/FIR No. 0150 of 2024 dated 4 th June, 2024 registered with Police Station Shegaon City, District Buldhana, Maharashtra. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant’s mother-in-law committed suicide and that the appellant, along with others, is guilty of the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
5. The deceased, prior to throwing herself on the railway track before a moving train, is alleged to have left behind a suicide note. Although the appellant has been named in such note, it is claimed by her that the deceased was illiterate and, therefore, it is extremely doubtful as to whether she had written the suicide note. That is, of course, a matter of evidence. However, admittedly, the suicide note is in the custody of the investigating officer and the question of tampering with evidence may not arise. We are also informed that although the appellant has all along been willing to join investigation, she has not been called upon by the investigating officer to face interrogation.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not warranted.
7. The impugned order stands set aside. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested in connection with proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, she shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
8. It goes without saying that as and when the investigating officer requires the appellant to face interrogation, she shall join such investigation without fail. The appellant shall also co-operate in the ensuing trial, if any. She shall not, directly or indirectly, by inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to any police officer or to the court.
9. It is made clear that in the event the appellant breaches any of the terms and conditions imposed by it, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
10. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
11. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed.
