Anticipatory bail granted in abetment of suicide case: mere workplace harassment without proximate incitement insufficient; parity with co-accused; no mini-trial at bail stage despite ongoing investigation.

JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, Judge.

Applicant-Harikesh Meena, apprehending his arrest in case FIR No. 9 of 2025, dated 19th March, 2025, registered with Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 108 and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘S’), seeking indulgence of this Court, to direct the respondent, to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-noted case/FIR.

2. According to the applicant, the said FIR has been lodged, at the instance of the wife of Shri Vimal Negi, whose dead body was found in Bhakra Dam.

3. It has been averred in the bail application that as per the allegations, the husband of the complainant was being tortured mentally by the superior officers of the Power Corporation, especially, Director (Electrical) and Managing Director. The allegations of misbehave with deceased Vimal Negi are also stated to have been alleged by the wife of the deceased.

4. According to the applicant, he is innocent and has falsely been implicated, in this case, as, there is no direct or indirect evidence, connecting him, with the alleged crime.

5. Asserting the fact that he is an IAS Officer and working as Managing Director in HP Power Corporation Limited, Shimla, it has been demonstrated by the applicant that he is from a respectable family, having deep roots in the society and there is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice.

6. It is the case of the applicant that in order to prima facie establish the offence under Section 108 of the BNS, there must be some overt act and direct or indirect instigation and the same should be in close proximity of the commission of the suicide. Mere allegation of the alleged harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which leads to suicide, is not sustainable, as, is being done in the present case, since, the applicant had no direct dealing with the deceased, as, he was directly under the control of Director (Electrical).

7. According to the applicant, he has not been named in the FIR by name, however, he has received a notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS and has been directed to appear before the police. He wishes to join and cooperate with the investigating agency, as and when required, however, he is apprehending his arrest, in the said case.

8. It has also been contended on behalf of the applicant that according to the prosecution, Sh. Desh Raj, Director (Electrical), under whom, the deceased was directly working, is the main accused. After the dismissal of his bail application, by this Court, vide order, dated 26th March, 2025, passed in CrMP (M) No. 631 of 2025, he has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, vide order, dated 4th April, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed not to take any coercive action against said Desh Raj. As such, the relief of bail has been sought by the applicant, on the basis of the parity, also.

9. It has also been argued by learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant that now, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide orde