The court emphasized that substantial evidence is required for accusations of instigation under Section 108, allowing anticipatory bail based on lack of evidence.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 482 of the BNSS, the applicant accused has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11205031250039/2025 registered with Mandvi Police Station : Kachchh, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 85 and 54 of the BNS.

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely enroped in the offence. There is no suicide note, mens rea, or any iota of evidence suggesting instigation or incitement on her part. The allegations against her pertain to instigation and incitement, claiming that she abetted the offence. However, there is no substantive evidence to support these claims. Now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned APP has opposed the application on the ground that the offence is serious one. It is submitted that she has forced the deceased to commit the suicide as she is near relative of the deceased. Investigation is going on. If she released on bail, then possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence. Hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

5. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.

(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;

(2) applicant is having no past antecedents.

(3) The allegations against the present applicant are that she did not allow the deceased to visit her parental home, and whenever the deceased did go, she forced her to return to her matrimonial home. Apart from this, no other allegations were leveled against her. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the accusations against the applicant remain general and vague. There is no material evidence to suggest instigation or incitement on her part.

(4) nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from

6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application.

7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Ayyub & Ors. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported