The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of abetting the suicide of his former partner. The Court held that a refusal to marry or a failure to reply to messages, by itself, does not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee said the prosecution must show clear instigation and a direct, proximate link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide. The Court also stressed that abetment requires an active and direct act, along with mens rea.
Court says suicide note alone cannot decide bail
The Court noted that a suicide note cannot automatically justify denial of bail. The note must show a clear and proximate act of instigation attributable to the accused. Without that, the Court cannot treat the note as sufficient to deny relief.
Background of the case
The complainant’s daughter died by suicide on May 9, 2023. She allegedly hanged herself from a ceiling fan. During the investigation, police recovered two suicide notes, notebooks, and the deceased’s mobile phone.
The post-mortem recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. A forensic examination reportedly confirmed that the suicide notes were written by the deceased.
An FIR was registered in August 2025 after the Trial Court passed an order on an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the deceased’s parents.
What the suicide notes alleged
According to the prosecution, the suicide notes stated that the accused and the deceased were in a relationship for about two years. The notes also claimed the accused promised to marry her. They further alleged that he later refused marriage, citing family pressure.
High Court finds no direct instigation
Justice Banerjee observed that the prosecution relied mainly on the contents of the alleged suicide notes. However, the Court found no credible material that supported the charge of abetment.
The Court also looked at the WhatsApp exchanges between the deceased and the applicant. It found that the chats did not show any incriminating or untoward conduct.
The Court added that not replying to messages cannot, by itself, amount to instigation. It said the law requires a direct and proximate nexus with the act of suicide.
Non-cooperation claim not enough to deny bail
The prosecution argued that the applicant did not cooperate during the investigation. The Court rejected this as a standalone ground to deny bail. It said that merely not giving “desirable answers” does not justify denial, especially when the prosecution has not clearly shown the extent of non-participation.
The Court clarified that the prosecution may take appropriate steps under law if it considers them necessary.
Bail terms
The High Court granted anticipatory bail and directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant must be released on furnishing:
- Personal bond: ₹1,00,000
- Surety: One surety of the like amount
The case is titled Ujjwal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi).
