The court emphasized that to establish abetment of suicide, the prosecution must demonstrate mens rea, showing direct or indirect acts leading the victim to suicide, and mere harassment is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant against the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No.761/2025, whereby the bail application preferred Section 483 of BNSS ( Section 439 Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. The appellant is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.289/2025, registered at P.S. Kotwali Pali, District Pali for the offences under Sections 308 (2), 108, 61(2)(a) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint at Kotwali Police Station, Pali, stating that the complainant is a widow and elderly lady with a son named Kantilal, who has two sons, Abhishek and Mohit. According to the complainant, a woman named Mumtaz, wife of Sher Mohammad, was in contact with Kantilal via social media. She allegedly developed a relationship with him, however later on she pressurized him, and extorted money, which caused Kantilal significant mental distress. On 28 May 2025, the complainant and her son Kantilal went to Jaitaran, while Kantilal’s wife, who is suffering from tuberculosis, also went to her maternal home. After staying for some time, Kantilal told his mother that he was going to Pali and returned home. After reaching Pali, he committed suicide. Neighbours informed the complainant’s brother-in-law Kamlesh and her other son Ravi, who broke open the door and found Kantilal’s body. Around that time, Mumtaz was reportedly calling Kantilal and using abusive language. On the basis of these facts, FIR No. 289/2025 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Pali.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present matter solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, with no direct proof implicating her.

5. It is further contended that Kantilal, the complainant’s son, had harassed her via social media platforms, and any interactions with him were limited to minor transactions within family and social circles. It is submitted that Kantilal also had certain disputes with his wife, who suffers from tuberculosis and was residing at her parental home.

6. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. v. The State of Maharastra and Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 wherein the Hon’ble court has observed that:

“14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another