The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that mere allegations of public humiliation, even when followed by suicide, do not automatically constitute an offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) absent clear evidence of instigation. In granting bail to two accused, the Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case hinges on speculative inferences, not proven conduct.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present bail applications arise from FIR No. 196/2025, registered at Police Station Boranada, District Jodhpur City West, against Gopal Tanwar (alias Doga) and his uncle Narayan. The complainant alleges that the petitioners falsely accused the deceased of sexually assaulting Gopal’s sister, thereby publicly humiliating him through three video recordings. The deceased, reportedly shamed before the entire village and pressured for monetary compensation, subsequently committed suicide.
Key Facts
- The deceased allegedly sexually assaulted the sister of petitioner Gopal Tanwar, as per her recorded statement.
- A village Panchayat was convened to resolve the matter, and no FIR was registered at that stage.
- Three video recordings were made by the petitioners, in which the deceased is heard denying the allegations and expressing distress over being falsely implicated.
- The petitioners claim the videos were made to document the deceased’s own admissions, not to instigate him.
- The deceased’s suicide occurred after the videos were circulated in the village.
- The sister’s statement, recorded during investigation, corroborates the initial sexual assault allegation against the deceased.
- Other witnesses confirm attempts at informal settlement through the Panchayat.
Procedural History
- 12.11.2025: Petitioners arrested in connection with FIR No. 196/2025.
- Before 14.05.2026: Investigation completed; charge sheet filed.
- 14.05.2026: Bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners:
- Argued that the videos merely captured the deceased’s own statements and did not contain threats, coercion, or instigation.
- Emphasized that the deceased’s suicide was a result of his own reaction to being exposed for a prior offence, not due to any act of the petitioners.
- Stated that the matter was already under informal resolution via Panchayat.
- Highlighted that the investigation is complete and trial will be protracted.
For the Respondent (State & Complainant):
- Contended that the video recordings, when viewed in context, demonstrate a campaign of public shaming and extortion.
- Asserted that the petitioners’ actions directly led to the deceased’s mental trauma and suicide.
- Argued that the gravity of the offence under Section 108 BNS warrants continued custody.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought immediate release on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, pending trial, citing prolonged judicial custody since 12.11.2025, completion of investigation, and absence of risk of flight or tampering with evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the allegations against the petitioners, based on video recordings of the deceased’s self-incriminating statements, amount to instigation to suicide under Section 108 of the BNS, or whether the evidence is too speculative to justify continued detention without trial.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the absence of direct threats or coercion in the videos, and the fact that the deceased himself admitted to the prior sexual assault. They cited State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh to argue that mere humiliation, without active instigation, cannot attract Section 108 BNS. They emphasized that the investigation is complete, the accused have been in custody for over six months, and no evidence suggests they will abscond.
For the Respondent
The State and complainant contended that the circulation of the videos in the village constituted a deliberate campaign of public degradation, which, in the context of the deceased’s vulnerability, amounted to psychological pressure leading to suicide. They relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to argue that the accused’s conduct must be viewed holistically, and that bail should be denied in cases involving moral turpitude and suicide.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the video recordings and the surrounding circumstances. It noted that while the deceased expressed distress in the videos, there was no explicit demand for money, no threat of further exposure, and no direct incitement to harm himself. The Court observed:
"Whether these allegations indicate instigation on part of the petitioner, is doubtful. Moreover, the veracity of the video recordings and the other material on record suggesting the petitioner's involvement, as well as the alleged instigation on his part, are matters to be examined by the learned trial Court during the course of the trial to determine whether any offence under Section 108 is made out."
The Court further held that the prosecution had not demonstrated any likelihood of the petitioners fleeing justice or tampering with evidence. The fact that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed indicated that the state had gathered all available evidence. The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the case, emphasizing that bail is not a determination of guilt but a procedural safeguard.
The Court also noted the prolonged period of judicial custody - over six months - with no trial scheduled, and the absence of any indication that the petitioners posed a threat to society or witnesses.
The Verdict
The bail applications were allowed. The petitioners, Gopal Tanwar alias Doga and Narayan, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. They must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever summoned, until the conclusion of the trial. The order is subject to their not being wanted in any other case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Instigation Must Be Proven, Not Inferred
- Practitioners must now demonstrate direct, active encouragement or coercion to establish Section 108 BNS liability; mere public exposure or humiliation, even if severe, is insufficient.
- Video evidence showing the victim’s own admissions or expressions of distress cannot be automatically construed as instigation.
- The burden remains on the prosecution to prove a causal link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide.
Bail Is Not Denied Solely on Gravity of Offence
-
The Court reaffirmed that the pendency of a serious charge does not justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
-
Completion of investigation and absence of flight risk are decisive factors under Section 483 BNSS.
-
Courts must avoid presuming guilt at the bail stage, especially where evidence is circumstantial or contested.
-
In future cases under Section 108 BNS, defence counsel should focus on dissecting the nature of communication (verbal, written, or recorded) to show absence of intent to instigate.
-
Prosecutors must now prepare detailed forensic and contextual analyses of digital evidence to establish direct causation.
