Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 19882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Aaradhna Sawhney, J
Ranjana Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-52883-2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dheerja
For the Respondents: Gautam Thapar, Ravinder Singh
Abetment of suicide requires proof of a direct, proximate act and a deliberate mens rea, demonstrating the accused's conscious intention to lead the victim to suicide. Mere harassment, emotional pressure, or relationship conflict, without evidence of active instigation, is insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 108 BNS.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Section 108 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail - Suicide - Abetment - Ingredients of offence - To establish abetment, there must be a proximate prior act clearly finding that suicide was the direct consequence of continuous harassment - Mens rea must be demonstrated through a conscious deliberate intention to drive a person to commit suicide - Casual harassment or emotional conflict in interpersonal relationships does not suffice for Section 108 BNS (formerly Section 306 IPC) conviction - Investigating agencies and trial courts urged to exercise caution to avoid untenable prosecutions and abuse of process. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having had an intimate relationship with the deceased, was accused under Section 108 BNS following the deceased committing suicide. The complainant alleged that the petitioner harassed and blackmailed the deceased after he expressed an inability to marry her. The petitioner denied these allegations, citing WhatsApp conversations showing mutual intimate engagement and emotional conflict, and argued that the deceased's suicide was not directly incited by her actions. Her pre-arrest bail application was previously dismissed by the Sessions Court.
Findings of Court:
Examining the judicial precedents regarding the high threshold for abetment, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a proximate act or a conscious, deliberate intention (mens rea) by the petitioner to drive the deceased to suicide. The court found that the petitioner made out a case of exceptional circumstances entitling her to pre-arrest bail, subject to specific conditions.
Issues: Whether the contents of the suicide note and the petitioner's conduct establish the necessary elements of abetment to suicide, warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: Abetment to suicide requires proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement or active participation proximate to the event, with the specific intent (mens rea) of driving the person to end their life. Interpersonal relationship conflicts, even if distressing, do not automatically satisfy the threshold for abetment absent a clear link to the suicidal act.
Result: Petition allowed; anticipatory bail granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding fir registration and denial of bail by lower court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding evidence of harassment and whatsapp messages. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of judicial precedents regarding the necessity of proximate act and mens rea for abetment of suicide. (Para 6) |
| 4. final order granting anticipatory bail with conditions. (Para 7) |
****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, has been filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.186 dated 13.08.2025 registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, at the instance of Harmesh Lal (complainant), for the commission of offences punishable u/s 108 of BNS.
2. Criminal proceedings in the present case were initiated against petitioner on the statement of Harmesh Lal, a businessman by profession, son of Chunni Lal, resident of House No.44/A, Block A, Canal View, Doraha Road, Ludhiana, alleging therein that he has two children. His daughter Payal Sharma is married. His son Vivek Sharmam, aged about 39 years was married earlier with Mangla Sharma. Unfortunately, the couple could not live together peacefully and thus, the marriage was legally dissolved about 03 years ago. Vivek has been working with him(complainant) in the factory. At about 07.15 PM on 12.08.2025, Vivek disclosed that his friend’s mother is admitted in Forties Hospital, Ludhiana and that he would be visiting the hospital to donate blood, thus, would return back home on the following day i.e. 13.08.2025. However, when Vivek did not return back, the family tried to contact him but his phone was switched off. Anxiety got the better of them and thus, the family members started looking for Vivek. Incidentally, when they went inside Vivek’s room, they found red coloured diary near the table which contained ‘Suicide note’ in the handwriting of Vivek. In the note, the boy alleged that petitioner and her friend are responsible for his death. They have harassed him. Though Shweta @ Ranjana Bhatia (present petitioner) had sweared in the name of ‘Shyam Baba’ that she would never bother/pressurize him for getting married but she has not kept her promise. Of late, she has been harassing and blackmailing him.
Complainant, a distressed father, further mentioned in the complaint that his son Vivek was friends with Shweta Bhatia (petitioner) and had disclosed the girl that they cannot marry each other. Initially Shweta agreed to this but later she started bothering and harassing his son Vivek to get married to her. Towards the end, complainant requested the police authorities to catch hold of all those responsible for the untimely and tragic death of his only son Vivek, as also to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against them.
On the basis of the said complaint, a formal case vide FIR No.186 dated 13.08.2025, under Section 108 of BNS was registered against the present petitioner and her unknown friend and criminal proceedings were set into motion. Investigation is still underway.
3. Apprehending her arrest, present petitioner had moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The same was dismissed, in terms of order dated 10.09.2025. Aggrieved of the said order, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that totally false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner and deceased both of whom were legally divorced, had met on a matrimonial site. They became fond of each other and used to meet very frequently. While drawing attention of the Court to the copies of ‘‘WhatsApp chats’, learned counsel contended that petitioner and deceased were indulging in intimate conversations as well. Their relationship was more than that of just ‘casual friends’. These chats reveal the extent to which the two were emotionally attached. In one such conversation, deceased
