Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 483 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in case where she was accused of abetting suicide by her husband, a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., held that 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. Thus, the Court granted bail to the wife.
Background
The FIR was registered under Sections 108, 3(5) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) based on statement recorded by the complainant alleging that his cousin brother (‘husband’) was married to the petitioner and there arose matrimonial discord between them due to which quarrels used to take place and the husband used to remain tense and perplexed.
On 21-6-2025, the wife and her sister had misbehaved with the husband by hurling abuses and assaulting him, due to which he left home and did not return. Thereafter, a missing report was lodged by the complainant. On 25-6-2025, his dead body was found in a canal near the village. The complainant alleged that the wife in connivance with the co-accused had abetted suicide committed by the husband.
After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The wife and her son were arrested, and they suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. Further, two more persons were nominated as accused.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that in order to bring a case within the provisions of Section 108 BNS:
-
there must be a case of commission of suicide,
-
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 as allegation of harassment of the deceased by the accused does not suffice.
The Court further stated that 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.
The Court reiterated that it is a well settled law that “to prove the offence of abetment, which is defined under Section 45 of BNS (which is pari materia with Section 107 of IPC), it must be the state of mind of the accused to commit a particular crime that must also be visible so as to determine the culpability of his action.”
Further, the Court noted that the wife was in custody for about 7 months and the trial would take considerable time to conclude. The Court reiterated that bail is the rule, and jail is an exception. Therefore, the Court held that the wife’s pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining her in custody.
Hence, the Court allowed the petition at hand and granted bail to the wife subject to her furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
[Satnam Kaur v. State of Punjab, CRM M No. 65803 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 10-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Gurmohan Preet Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab and Shivam Joshi, Advocate