The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a mere allegation of demanding money, without any proximate act demonstrating intent to abet suicide, cannot justify the denial of anticipatory bail. This ruling reinforces the principle that gravity of accusation alone cannot override the presumption of innocence, particularly where the accused have no criminal antecedents and the evidence remains untested.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Kanhaiyalal Parmar and Mahesh Parmar, are accused of abetting the suicide of Kailash Parmar under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleges that Kailash consumed Celphos after being harassed by the applicants for money, following the sale of agricultural land to them and others. The deceased reportedly told his wife and son that the applicants had taken his land and failed to pay him, leading to his suicide.
Procedural History
- 24 October 2025: Deceased Kailash Parmar consumes poison and dies at Arogya Hospital.
- 25 October 2025: Police register unnatural death intimation No. 32/2025.
- November 2025: FIR No. 30 of 2026 registered at Police Station Akodia under Section 108 of BNS 2023.
- March 2026: Applicants file anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNS 2023.
Relief Sought
The applicants seek protection from arrest, arguing they are falsely implicated to obstruct the execution of registered sale deeds. They assert no threat or coercion occurred in close proximity to the death, and their clean record and advanced age make custodial interrogation unnecessary.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 108 of BNS 2023 is made out based solely on a prior demand for money, without any direct, proximate, or intentional act demonstrating mens rea to abet suicide.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra to argue that abetment requires active encouragement, instigation, or intentional conduct directly linked to the suicide. Mere financial dispute or verbal demand, without evidence of psychological pressure or threat in the immediate lead-up to death, does not satisfy the triple test for abetment under Section 108 BNS 2023. The applicants’ age, profession, and lack of criminal history further support bail.
For the Respondent
The State opposed bail on grounds of gravity of the offence, citing the deceased’s dying declaration implicating the applicants. It argued that the demand for money, coupled with the timing of the suicide, created a prima facie case of abetment. However, the Public Prosecutor conceded that no prior criminal antecedents were recorded against the applicants.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that abetment to suicide under Section 108 BNS 2023 requires a direct causal link between the accused’s conduct and the deceased’s decision to end life. The Court noted that the only specific allegation against Kanhaiyalal was a single visit a day before death, where he allegedly demanded money and threatened to kill. No such allegation was made against Mahesh, Shivnarayan, or Rohit in the immediate vicinity of the death.
"The veracity of prosecution and intention of the applicants for abetment to commit suicide will be determined after evidence in the trial."
The Court distinguished between civil disputes over property and criminal abetment, holding that financial pressure alone, absent evidence of psychological coercion or direct instigation, cannot sustain a charge under Section 108 BNS 2023. The Court further observed that the applicants’ age, social standing, and lack of criminal record negated any risk of flight or tampering. Custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary given the ongoing investigation and absence of evidence suggesting collusion.
The Verdict
The applicants won. The Court held that mere demand for money, without proximate conduct demonstrating mens rea to abet suicide, does not constitute an offence under Section 108 BNS 2023. Anticipatory bail was granted to both applicants on personal bond of ₹50,000 each with solvent surety, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with investigation and non-interference with witnesses.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Demand of Money Alone Is Insufficient for Abetment
- Practitioners must now challenge charges under Section 108 BNS 2023 where the only basis is financial dispute or verbal demand.
- Prosecution must establish a direct, proximate, and intentional act of instigation or encouragement - not mere association with a deceased’s financial stress.
- Courts must scrutinize the temporal and causal proximity between the accused’s conduct and the suicide.
Age and Clean Record Are Material in Bail Decisions
- Applicants over 70 years of age with no criminal history are entitled to strong presumption in favor of bail.
- Social standing and profession (e.g., agriculturists) may be considered as indicators of low flight risk.
- Custodial interrogation should not be presumed necessary merely because the offence is non-bailable.
Investigation Must Precede Arrest in Ambiguous Cases
- Where the evidence is based on dying declarations or hearsay, arrest should not precede thorough investigation.
- Courts must avoid pre-judging the merits of the case at the bail stage.
- The burden remains on the prosecution to establish a prima facie case of intentional abetment - not just circumstantial association.
