$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 2976/2025 VIKAS DUBEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Mr. Ishita Bedi and Mr. Dushyant Pratap Singh, Advocates.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with ASI Raj Kumar.

Mr. Tarunjeet Singh Jolly, Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Advocates for respondent no.2.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 34/2025 of PS Metro Police Station Ghitorni for offence under Section 108/3(5) BNS. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant as well as learned APP for State and learned counsel for complainant de facto.

2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. In the night D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2cops50D e 4. 51 uo iN a 5 r g 5 7e =s t i .:4 a i 5 e t 2 0 t H c al . : 6 a 69 2 N = lI 2 9 l f C 9 G 0I u a0 y a N 6 o = H , m 2 f b s, d c 83 6 i C o 4n be g 49 . = 0 0 O = =e 06 n 2 f H r 12 G 1U e 8= . dc 1 1 Id 0I R G d R 6 0 d 0 c T b I 3 H f 0 b 8 S b 1 y O e0 8 Hd 8 C 4 83 G F 9 2 : 8 O 6 0K , b I e D3 7 R s 7A U2 e 5 tE 9 I :T R = 7 1 S e dL 6 H H a 6 T 6 D 4H 4 7 0 P 3 O - e5 I K 7 4 0 , A 5 lC 1 AF h b 0 8L f e I T 9 i 2 ' 2 D D I0 ,c A H 7 c f 4 E 0 6 - 4 6 P 5 L ' 5 7 8 2 AH c f 0 7 6 0 LI 4 9 c , 7 I A a7 6 e b c6 4 5 5 c3 a fd af 8 8 e, 1 , intervening 03.06.2025 and 04.06.2025, an information was received at PS Ghitorni Metro about a person having jumped before an approaching metro train at Chhatarpur Metro Station. On being shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre, the injured was declared brought dead. In the course of investigation, the deceased was identified and from her shoulder bag, some registers, a college identity card, mobile phone and suicide note were recovered. In the said suicide note, written in Hindi, the deceased blamed her husband (the accused/applicant herein) as the culprit who compelled her to take her life. Further, during investigation on the basis of contents of the suicide note, the investigating officer also retrieved the mobile phone conversations between the deceased and the accused/applicant. Those conversations had been recorded by the deceased in her mobile phone and she disclosed in her suicide note having recorded the same.

3. In the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that no offence of abetment to suicide is made out in this case. It is contended that in order to make out the case for abetment, there has to be a proximity between the suicide and the alleged provocation. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also contends that it is the deceased only who was staying away from matrimonial home and the fact that she did not initiate any proceedings under Domestic Violence Act shows that she had no complaint against the accused/applicant. Further, it is contended that the deceased was suffering with a severe neurological disorder, so she committed suicide. It is also contended that there was no residential proximity the between the residence of the deceased and residence of the D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2ea7s1fD8 e ,c. 0 5 iN a 5 0 r g o4 4 5 t i . 1 :4 u a i 5 e 7 7 tc e l .5 : = a 6 0 2 N = 22 6 l 3 9 H 0I u 60 y 9 N 8 9 = I f m 2 Ga , 6a s,8 6 f p io b, H b 3 g 4 .c o = 0 4 e 90 n C n s 2 0 H r 61 e t = O = . f 2d a 1 Id 8 G G d Ul cd 0 0 C b 3 H 6 I R 8 cR1 o y e f T b 8 I b 8 C d 8 S G 9 d : O4 O e6 H0 b I 2 8 =7 R F 7 U 2 eK 3 9 I 1 : D R7 0 S e 5 A 61 H aT 4 e dE T 40 7 6 L 4 O H- 50 K 7 0 0 H3 10 P AFb 4 8 5I e3 A , T 0 ' 2D Cf 0 c, H 9 L 2 f 4 Is E 0 6 I D7 c P t A 5 L ' 5 = 4 6 AH c - f 8 2 D 0 LI 7 6 , 7e I A 9 ec blh a4 6 5 c i a 5 ,d c f f accused/applicant, so it is not a case of abetment.

4. On the other hand, learned APP and learned counsel for complainant de facto submit that the hand writte