For abetment of suicide, intention of the accused to provoke suicide must be established; mere harassment does not suffice.

ORDER :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.312 of 2025 of Upputhara Police Station, Idukki, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1) and 108 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to the prosecution, on 10.04.2025, the de facto complainant’s nephew caused the death of his two children and committed suicide along with his wife and the accused are alleged to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri.C.C.Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. Athul Poulose, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary.

5. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that petitioner has no involvement in the alleged crime and, therefore, he ought to be granted anticipatory bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. Petitioner is the Managing Director of a finance company. The deceased Sajeev had taken a loan of Rupees Three lakhs five thousand from one of the branches of the said Company. The loan was allegedly availed for purchasing an autorickshaw. Due to the failure of the deceased to repay the loan, staff of the company allegedly demanded repayment. Before committing suicide, the said Sajeev had allegedly written a suicide note, wherein reference is made to the establishment of the petitioner and stated that they had compelled him to repay the liability and that he was even threatened with attachment of his property in case of default. In the suicide note it is further stated that due to the said threats, he suffered mental trauma and is hence taking the extreme step.

There are references to other persons also, who had harassed the petitioner.

8. However, on going through the records of the case, prima facie it is not evident as to any specific instigation committed by the petitioner for abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased and his wife.

9. The offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of BNS requires the ingredients of Section 45(a) BNS to be satisfied. As per the said provision, a person abets the doing of a thing, if he instigates any person to do that thing. It is not every act or conduct that may amount to abetment of suicide. Law requires the accused to have intended by his act or instigation that the deceased would commit suicide. In order to attract the offence under Section 108 of BNS, the abetment must have been for committing suicide and not for doing some other act. Unless the instigation is done with the intention to prod the deceased to commit suicide, or had intentionally aided the commission of suicide, the offence will not be attracted. The crucial ingredient of the offence of abetment of suicide is that the act alleged as instigation must have been done with the intention that the deceased had to commit suicide. Hence the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended.

10. In this context, it is appropriate to mention that a straight-jacket formula cannot be adopted while dealing with cases of abetment of suicide. In the decision in Radhika Kapahtia (Dr.) v. State of Kerala [(2024) 2 KLT 635] it was observed that the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide is not what the deceased felt, but what t