A person can only be charged with abetment of suicide if it is proved that their actions intended to cause the victim to commit suicide, not merely for harassment.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.777 of 2025 of Guruvayoor Temple Police Station, Thrissur, registered initially for the offences punishable under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 and subsequently altered to Section 108 of BNS apart from Sections 9 (1)(b) and 9(2) of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act , 2012.

3. The prosecution alleges that on 10.10.2025, Sri.Musthafa A.M., the elder brother of the defacto complainant, was found hanging from his house and the investigation revealed that the deceased had borrowed money from accused 1 and 2 and they extracted large amount of money and even threatened to compel him to pay further exorbitant interest, resulting in the deceased committing suicide.

4. I have heard Adv.Sruthi Rajit, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. During the course of investigation, a suicide note was recovered from the room where the deceased was found hanging which revealed the names of the accused as persons responsible for the death of the deceased. The investigation has also revealed that the accused had, on the previous day of the death of the deceased, went to his house and threatened him, demanding exorbitant interest for the amount borrowed by the deceased. The prosecution allegations as revealed from the investigation conducted so far revealed that the accused had demanded the deceased to pay exorbitant interest for the amount borrowed. Even if those allegations are assumed to be true, still it is difficult to accept the proposition that the same would make out an offence under Section 108 of BNS. The prosecution has no case, atleast at this juncture, that the accused had done any specific overt act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

6. The requirement for attracting the offence under Section 108 of BNS is that there must be an act done with an intention on the part of the accused to prompt or persuade the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment or threats by itself, cannot take the colour of an abatement. The offence of abetment of suicide under of BNS requires the ingredients of Section 45(a) BNS to be satisfied. As per the said provision, a person abets the doing of a thing, if he instigates any person to do that thing. It is not every act or conduct that may amount to abetment of suicide. Law requires the accused to have intended, by his act or instigation that the deceased would commit suicide. In order to attract the offence under of BNS, the abetment must have been for committing suicide and not for doing some other act. Unless the instigation is done with the intention to prod the deceased to commit suicide, or had intentionally aided the commission of suicide, the offence will not be attracted. The crucial ingredient of the offence of abetment of suicide is that the act alleged as instigation must have been done with the intention that the deceased had would commit suicide. Hence the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended.

7. In this context, it is appropriate to mention that a straight-

jacket formula cannot be adopted while dealing with cases of abetment of suicide. In the decision inRadhika Kapahtia (Dr.) v. State of Kerala [(2024) 2 KLT 635] it was observed that the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended and also that no straight - jacket formula can be adopted while dealing with cases of abetment of suicide as each case had to be deci