The court granted regular bail to the husband accused of abetting suicide, noting that the charge-sheet was filed, co-accused were released, and the evidence suggested the incident was a spur-of-the-moment quarrel rather than a sustained effort to abet suicide.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Jal Unwalla with learned Advocate Mr. Neel Kanabar appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Katheria appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191020250479 of 2025 registered with Vastrapur Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 108 , 85, 89 and 54 of the BNS Act and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail. The affidavit of the mother of the applicant tendered is taken on record.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge- sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) Allegation being that the accused had abetted the deceased in committing the unfortunate act of suicide.

(ii) The present applicant being the husband of the deceased and whereas it would appear that the FIR makes allegations against the in- laws including the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law etc. and whereas all other accused having been released by this Court vide orders dated 17.03.2026, 02.02.2026 and 23.02.2026.

(iii) It would appear in this regard that the FIR states about the in-laws as well as the present applicant having harassed the deceased, more particularly, leading to a miscarriage and whereas, attention of this Court has been drawn to a statement of one Dr.Niruben Thakkar, Gynecologist, whom the deceased and the present applicant had consulted during the pregnancy of the deceased and whereas, it would appear that in the year 2024, the deceased had conceived and at that time there was a miscarriage and whereas, the deceased had conceived once again somewhere in the month of May, 2025 and later on, the foetus was required to be aborted, more particularly, the fetus was detected with congenital heart disease.

(iv) It also appears from the statement that the deceased and the present applicant having been informed about the heart disease of the foetus, both the deceased and the applicant had consented to the abortion which had been carried out by the doctor concerned.

(v) It also appears, reading the statement of sister-in-laws of the present applicant, namely Gayatriben and Kajalben, that the incident appears to be in the spur of the moment more particularly the present applicant and the deceased having some quarrel more particularly as regards the present applicant having asked the deceased to co-ordinate with her family members as regards the number of guests who would be coming and whereas during such an altercation that the deceased unfortunately had committed the unfortunate step.

(vi) This Court has also considered the fact that while the present applicant and other accused are alleged to have taken the deceased to the hospital and whereas while it would app