The main legal point established is that for abetment of suicide, an active role involving instigation or intentional aid is required, and the accused's intention for the victim to die must be established.

JUDGMENT

S K Panigrahi, J. - "People from the past, have a tendency to walk back into the present, and run over the future." Anthony Liccione's statement is epitomized in the present case, where a ghost of the petitioner's past has revivified to haunt her present and wreck her future. The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 439 of CrPC seeking bail. She is an accused in GR Case No. 4342 of 2019 arising out of Dhanupali PS Case No. 496 of 2019, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Sambalpur involving the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC.

2. The storyline is brutal in its simplicity as summarized in the FIR. The allegation against the accused/petitioner is that she along with the co-accused have inflicted direct and indirect mental torture on the deceased (Padmalochan Barik) which resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr. PC reveals that the petitioner had tied her nuptial knot with the deceased (Padma lochan) on 21.02.2019.However,prior to her marriage, she was alleged to have been in love relationship with the co-accused Upendra and it was alleged to have continued even after her marriage. The co-accused (Upendra) had sent some of the intimate and private Tik Tok videos with the petitioner to the deceased which were also alleged to have been streamed in social media. The said Tik Tok videos depicting such fornication got deep seated in the frail mind of the deceased and the addictive power of instantaneity made him loose perspective and balance. Of course, the underpinnings of familial shame made him suffer a lot internally in the form of tremendous mental pressure which invited a dangerous haste in ending his life on the fateful day of 13.07.2019 by hanging himself in the ceiling fan of his bed-room.

3. From the investigation and statements extracted under Section 161 of Cr. PC, it is evident that Upendra Mahananda is responsible for the abetment of suicide. The investigation does point finger at the role of the petitioner herein but not in a clear term. However, at this stage, the investigation of the case is at its infancy and more information needs to be gathered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. L.N Patel, strenuously contended that the petitioner has no role in the alleged commission of offence. It is her past life that has haunted her. The cause and circumstances surrounding the death of petitioner's husband which is apparently suicide but not yet appositely established. Though the statements, recorded under Section 161 of Cr. PC, of some of the family members, neighbours and friends' prima-facie disclose the tragic end of the deceased but none has attributed any motive of the petitioner or her role in the suicide of her husband. The petitioner was arrested on 14.01.2020 and since then she is in jail. Hence, she may be granted bail.

5. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Beura, Ld. Addl. Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is involved in the instant crime insofar as her role in abetting the suicide is concerned. The Investigation is in progress and considering the gravity of the offence she should not be granted bail. This is a non-bailable offence and the trial is yet to kick off. Therefore, releasing her on bail may skid the trial process.

6. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and after perusal of updated case Diary, it is a prima facie view that the incident might have been perceived to be just a streaming of Tik Tok videos of deceased's wife and her former beau but it was morally and legally heinous which led to an ugly consequence. The petitioner being wife should have the deceased's emotional safety, instead she became the cause of his emotional insecurity and severe mental upheaval leading to cessation of a life. But the role of the petitioner or her commission of any positive act attracting Section 306 of IPC, does not properly res