The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has granted anticipatory bail to two accused in a case alleging abetment of suicide under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that the prosecution's narrative fails to establish a prima facie case of criminal intent or direct incitement. The order underscores the necessity of concrete evidence linking the accused to the deceased's act of self-harm, reinforcing the principle that mere association or social disapproval cannot substitute for legal culpability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from the suicide of Puran Singh Kushwaha, a resident of village Bijlipura, District Morena, on or about 06.06.2025. The prosecution alleges that the applicants, Harsh Tomar and Anil alias Karu Tomar, instigated Puran Singh’s daughter Jyoti into an extramarital relationship, leading to the breakdown of her first marriage to Indrajeet Kushwaha. Subsequently, Jyoti was married off to Akash of village Naoli without a formal ceremony. On 06.06.2025, while Akash and Jyoti were returning to their village, Harsh Tomar allegedly abducted Jyoti. When Puran Singh confronted Harsh’s father, the latter allegedly responded with hostility, stating, "if you want to die, then die." Puran Singh subsequently hanged himself.
Key Facts
- Jyoti Kushwaha was married to Indrajeet Kushwaha approximately three years prior to 06.06.2025
- Harsh Tomar allegedly maintained contact with Jyoti, leading to the dissolution of her first marriage
- Jyoti was then given in marriage to Akash of Naoli village without a formal ceremony
- On 06.06.2025, Jyoti was allegedly abducted by Harsh Tomar near Porsa while returning with Akash
- Puran Singh confronted Harsh’s father, who allegedly made a threatening remark
- Puran Singh committed suicide by hanging on the same day
- FIR No. 110/2025 was registered at Police Station Mahua, District Morena, under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- No recovery of evidence or physical connection between the accused and the suicide act has been alleged
Procedural History
- 06.06.2025: Incident of alleged abduction and suicide of Puran Singh Kushwaha
- 07.06.2025: FIR No. 110/2025 registered at Police Station Mahua, District Morena
- 28.03.2026: Applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail
- 02.04.2026: Hearing before the High Court at Gwalior
The Parties' Positions
Applicants (Harsh Tomar and Anil alias Karu Tomar): Assert innocence, claim no criminal intent or act of abetment. Argue that their interaction with Jyoti, even if socially disapproved, does not constitute abetment under Section 108 of BNS. Emphasize absence of criminal antecedents, permanent residence in District Morena, and no risk of evidence tampering or flight.
State (Respondent): Opposes bail, contending that the accused instigated the deceased through emotional manipulation and hostile conduct, thereby contributing to the suicide. Relies on the complainant’s statement that the accused trapped Jyoti in extramarital affairs.
Complainant (Jyoti’s family): No objection to bail; filed affidavit supporting release.
Relief Sought
The applicants seek anticipatory bail to prevent arrest in connection with FIR No. 110/2025, with conditions to ensure cooperation in investigation and non-interference with witnesses.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the facts alleged constitute a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and whether the applicants’ conduct meets the legal threshold for criminal liability under Section 3(5) of the same Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that Section 108 of BNS 2023, which replaces Section 107 IPC, requires active instigation, intentional encouragement, or deliberate aid to commit suicide. Mere social interaction, even if leading to marital discord, does not amount to abetment. The applicants had no role in the deceased’s decision to end his life. The father’s alleged remark, "if you want to die, then die," was an emotional outburst, not a criminal incitement. The applicants have no criminal history, are permanent residents, and have no motive to flee. Custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the accused’s persistent interference in Jyoti’s marital life, coupled with the abduction and the father’s hostile response, created a coercive environment that led to the suicide. The complainant’s statement that the accused "trapped" Jyoti in extramarital affairs was cited as evidence of psychological manipulation. The investigation was still ongoing, and granting bail might hamper the probe.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the legal requirements for abetment under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It noted that abetment requires a direct and intentional act of encouragement or aid, not mere association or social disapproval. The Court observed that the deceased’s suicide followed a complex chain of events involving inter-caste marriage, familial disapproval, and emotional distress - none of which can be conclusively attributed to the applicants.
"The mere fact that the deceased’s daughter was involved in an extramarital relationship, even if encouraged by the applicants, does not, without more, establish criminal abetment under Section 108 of the BNS."
The Court further held that the father’s alleged remark, while regrettable, was not a direct incitement to suicide but a reaction to perceived social humiliation. No evidence of threats, coercion, or active participation in the suicide act was presented. The Court emphasized that Section 3(5) of BNS, which criminalizes acts causing suicide, requires a proximate causal link - absent here. The complainant’s affidavit expressing no objection further weakened the State’s opposition. The Court also noted the applicants’ clean record, permanent residence, and willingness to cooperate.
The Verdict
The applicants succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail to both Harsh Tomar and Anil alias Karu Tomar. In the event of arrest, they shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of like amount. The bail is subject to six conditions: compliance with bond terms, cooperation in investigation, no intimidation of witnesses, no commission of further offences, no unnecessary adjournments, and no travel abroad without court permission. The order is effective immediately and remains operative until final disposal of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Abetment Requires Active, Intentional Conduct
- Practitioners must now demonstrate direct, intentional encouragement or aid to establish abetment under Section 108 BNS
- Mere emotional distress, social disapproval, or passive association cannot substitute for criminal intent
- Cases involving inter-caste relationships or family disputes require careful distinction between moral culpability and legal liability
Bail Should Not Be Denied Solely on Gravity of Allegation
- The Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail cannot be withheld merely because the offence involves suicide
- Absence of recovery, no flight risk, and cooperation are decisive factors
- Complainant’s non-objection carries significant weight in bail proceedings
Procedural Caution in BNS Cases
- Courts must scrutinize whether allegations under new BNS provisions mirror the intent of repealed IPC provisions
- Prosecution must provide specific evidence of instigation, not rely on speculative narratives
- Investigating agencies must avoid overreach in cases where causation is indirect or circumstantial
