SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 28253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manisha Batra, J
Jasmer Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No.65297 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yagsimant Attri
For the Respondents: Himani Arora, Suresh Nain

For an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS, there must be an active role of instigation or positive action proximate to the occurrence; mere harassment is insufficient, and pre-trial incarceration should not replicate post-conviction sentencing.

Headnote:(A) Abetment of Suicide Ingredients of Section 108 of BNS To establish abetment, there must be an active role played by the accused through instigation or acts facilitating the commission of suicide; mere allegations of harassment without positive action proximate to the time of occurrence are insufficient. (Para 6)

(B) Anticipatory Bail Pre-trial Incarceration Pre-trial incarceration should not be treated as a replica of post-conviction sentencing; where the factum of instigation requires thorough trial assessment, bail may be granted subject to conditions. (Para 6)

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case of alleged abetment of suicide based on a suicide note.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the fir and bail rejection. (Para 1 , 2)
2. competing arguments regarding false implication versus evidence in suicide note. (Para 3 , 4)
3. legal requirements for abetment of suicide and policy against punitive pre-trial detention. (Para 5)
4. grant of anticipatory bail with specific conditions for investigation cooperation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
1.The date when the judgment is reserved09.02.2026
2.The date when the judgment is pronounced13.02.2026
3.The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website13.02.2026
4.Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronouncedFull
5.The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereofNot applicable

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
725 03.08.2025 Panipat City, District Panipat 108 and 308 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”)

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of complaint submitted by the complainant Parveen Kumar alleging that the relations between his father-in-law Karan and his brother Dalel were strained due to which altercations used to take place between them. On 03.08.2025, his father-in-law informed his brother-in-law Vikrant that Jyoti daughter of Dalel had borrowed a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from Karan and had not been returning the same. On raising demand of money, the family members of Dalel including the petitioner who is a friend of co-accused Jyoti, made him consume some intoxicant, prepared an objectionable video and on the basis of the same, they had been blackmailing him from the past two years. They had also been raising demand of Rs.50 lakhs in cash. He alleged that due to stress, his father-in-law had committed suicide on that very day. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 19.08.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no material whatsoever on record to connect the petitioner with the allegations so levelled. No complaint had been filed by the deceased with regard to his being blackmailed by the co-accused and himself. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not attracted qua him. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report has been filed. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the deceased had left a suicide note wherein specific allegations were levelled by the victim against the petitioner as well and the same establish that due to harassment meted out at the hands of the petitioner and other accused, the victim had ended his life. The allegations make out a case for commission of subject offences against the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is must for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have abetted suicide by the victim. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 108 of BNS, undoubtedly, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, a person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide, must have played an active role

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top