The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that mere allegations of phone calls made to a deceased person, without evidence of direct instigation or proximate conduct leading to suicide, cannot justify arrest under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail must be granted where the prosecution’s case lacks a tangible causal link between the accused’s actions and the alleged offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sachin Khare, is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 168/2026 registered at Police Station Urga, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, for an alleged offence under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (causing suicide). The prosecution alleges that the applicant threatened the deceased, Sanat Kumar Kashyap, via mobile phone due to suspicion that the deceased had assisted the applicant’s sister in eloping with another person. The sole basis of the allegation is call logs from the deceased’s mobile phone. There is no suicide note, no eyewitness account of threats, and no forensic or digital evidence linking the content of the calls to coercion or instigation.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Sanat Kumar Kashyap, was found dead by hanging on 13.03.2026
- An FIR was registered on the same day based on a complaint by Ramesh Kashyap, the deceased’s relative
- The prosecution claims the applicant made multiple calls to the deceased pressuring him to reveal the identity of the person with whom the applicant’s sister had eloped
- No suicide note was recovered
- A video of the deceased’s body was allegedly viral on social media, triggering police action
- The applicant was previously arrested in a related matter under Section 204 of BNS (destruction of evidence), but that case did not involve allegations of causing suicide
- The applicant is a permanent resident of Gewra Basti, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba, with no history of flight or non-cooperation
Procedural History
- 13.03.2026: Death of Sanat Kumar Kashyap; FIR No. 168/2026 registered at Police Station Urga
- 05.04.2026: Applicant files anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNS, 2023 before the High Court
- 06.04.2026: Hearing before the Chief Justice; arguments presented by both parties
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel contends that the applicant is falsely implicated. He argues that the prosecution has failed to establish any direct or proximate act by the applicant that could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. The call logs alone, without content or context, are insufficient to infer criminal intent. The applicant has no prior record of violence or threats, and his previous arrest under Section 204 BNS was unrelated to this incident. He undertakes to comply with all bail conditions.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposes bail, arguing that the nature of the offence under Section 108 BNS is serious and that the applicant’s alleged conduct, even if indirect, may have contributed to the deceased’s mental state. The State asserts that arrest is necessary to ensure a fair investigation and prevent tampering with evidence.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits arrest based solely on circumstantial evidence of phone calls, without proof of direct instigation, coercion, or proximate conduct leading to suicide.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Sushil Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi to argue that arrest under Section 108 BNS requires a prima facie causal link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide. Mere suspicion, call logs, or social media speculation cannot substitute for evidence of active pressure or threat. The applicant is a settled resident with no motive to flee, and his prior arrest under a different provision does not justify detention in this case.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that Section 108 BNS criminalizes any act that may drive a person to suicide, and that the applicant’s persistent calls created a hostile environment. It argued that arrest is necessary to preserve evidence and prevent witness tampering, especially given the viral nature of the video. The State did not produce any transcript or recording of the calls.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of Section 108 BNS, which criminalizes acts that cause or contribute to suicide. It emphasized that the provision requires a direct or proximate connection between the accused’s conduct and the victim’s decision to end their life. The Court noted that the prosecution had not produced any evidence of the content of the calls, nor any testimony indicating threats, harassment, or coercion. The absence of a suicide note, eyewitnesses, or digital records of abusive communication rendered the case speculative.
"There is no material on record to show any direct instigation or proximate act attributable to the applicant which could have driven the deceased to commit suicide."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving repeated harassment, public humiliation, or documented threats. It held that the mere existence of phone calls, without more, does not satisfy the threshold for arrest under Section 108 BNS. The Court also observed that the applicant had no history of violence and was a permanent resident with no incentive to abscond. The prior arrest under Section 204 BNS was deemed irrelevant to the current allegations.
The Court further noted that the investigation was still at an early stage, and the applicant’s cooperation could be secured through bail conditions without the need for custodial interrogation.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail to Sachin Khare. In the event of arrest, he shall be released on executing a personal bond and one surety of like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Conditions include: (a) no contact with witnesses; (b) no conduct prejudicial to the trial; (c) appearance before the trial court on every date; (d) submission of Aadhaar card and coloured photograph with Aadhaar number for verification; and (e) no commission of any similar offence in future.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mere Call Logs Are Insufficient for Arrest Under BNS Section 108
- Practitioners must now demand production of call content, timestamps, and context before supporting arrest applications under Section 108 BNS
- Prosecutors cannot rely on speculation or social media narratives to justify custody
- Defence counsel should file applications under Section 482 BNS to quash FIRs lacking proximate causation
Anticipatory Bail Is the Norm Where No Direct Threat Is Proven
- Courts will prioritize liberty where the accused is a settled resident with no prior record of violence
- Conditions such as Aadhaar verification and court appearances are sufficient to ensure compliance
- The burden remains on the prosecution to establish a causal link, not on the accused to prove innocence
Investigation Must Precede Arrest in Suicide-Related Cases
- Police must conduct a preliminary inquiry into the nature of communication before registering FIRs under Section 108 BNS
- Arrest should not be automatic even in cases involving vulnerable victims
- Courts will scrutinize whether the alleged conduct was isolated or part of a pattern of harassment
