IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:10.02.2026 Satnam Kaur ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Gurmohan Preet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Shivam Joshi, Advocate for the complainant.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.0126, dated 25.06.2025, registered under Sections 108, 3(5) of the BNS, at Police Station Division 'B', Amritsar.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant – Namberdar Ranjit Singh, alleging that his cousin brother Kartar Singh was married with the present petitioner. There was matrimonial discord between the petitioner and Kartar Singh, due to which quarrels used to take place between them, and Kartar Singh used to remain tense and perplexed. On 21.06.2025, the petitioner and her sister Arwinder Kaur had misbehaved with Kartar Singh by hurling abuses and assaulting him, due to which he left home and did not return. A missing report was lodged by his sister. On 25.06.2025, his dead body was found in a canal near village Dhund. By alleging that the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused had abetted suicide by the victim, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner and her son Harmohit Singh was arrested on the same day. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. Two more persons were nominated as accused. Investigation qua the petitioner now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she along with her son and two other persons, has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. Co-accused Arwinder Kaur and Rawel Singh have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. She has clean antecedents. She is in custody since 25.06.2025. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. Ingredients for commission of the subject offences are not at all attracted qua her. Her further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who along with co-accused had extended beatings to the victim and harassed him, thereby forcing the victim to take the extreme step of committing suicide. There are chances of her intimidating the witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have abetted suicide by the victim on the allegations that on 21.06.2025, she had hurled abuses and assaulted him. In order to bring a case within the provisions of Section 108 of BNS, undoubtedly, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by act of instigation and doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide. The prosecution must show a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement by the accused in commission of suicide. Allegation of harassment of the deceased by the accused does not suffice. In the absence of any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to suicide, offence under Section 108 of BNS would not be considered to have been committed. It is also well settled proposition of law that to prove the offence of abetment, which is defined under Sec