Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee granted anticipatory bail to a man facing charges of abetting his former partner's suicide, finding that the prosecution had not established a clear or proximate act of instigation on his part. Two suicide notes recovered from the scene, confirmed through forensic analysis, attributed her decision to the accused's conduct. The Court observed that a refusal to marry or a failure to respond to messages does not, by itself, amount to abetment of suicide, and that a suicide note alone, without corroborating active conduct, is insufficient to deny anticipatory bail.

The applicant moved a bail application seeking anticipatory bail in proceedings arising from an FIR registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged pursuant to an order of the Trial Court on an application filed by the deceased’s parents. The prosecution case was that the complainant’s daughter died by suicide by hanging at her residence after allegedly writing two suicide notes. The investigating team seized the suicide notes, notebooks, and the deceased’s mobile phone. The post-mortem report recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The suicide notes, confirmed by FSL, attributed the act to the applicant’s alleged refusal to marry her.

Also Read: Supreme Court Holds Voluntary Section 108 Customs Statements Can Constitute Substantive Evidence; Conviction Upheld, Sentence Reduced

The applicant contended that the chats exchanged between him and the deceased had not been subjected to FSL verification and that there was no active act of instigation. It was submitted that refusal to marry does not constitute abetment. The State relied on the suicide notes, the relationship between the parties, and alleged non-cooperation during investigation.

The Court recorded that “though the case of the prosecution rests upon the contents of the alleged suicide notes of the deceased, there is nothing credible enough for substantiating the same.” It further observed, “It is at the end of the day a singular version of the deceased.”

With regard to the electronic communication, the Court stated, “The exchange of WhatsApp texts of the deceased with the applicant prior to her committing suicide also do not point anything of untoward nature which is, for the time being, sufficient to deny bail to the applicant.” The Court also noted, “More so, since the only allegation is that he did not reply to the texts he received.”

On the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, the Court observed, “There are thus no active/ clear act of instigation/ abetment having a direct and proximate link to the commission of suicide.”

Regarding the allegation of non-cooperation, the Court recorded, “It is also not denied that the applicant joined the investigation, however, as per prosecution, he did not give valid responses or produce his mobile phone.” It further stated, “Merely not getting the ‘desirable’ answers, is itself not a reason to deny bail, moreover, when the level of non-participation is itself unclear.” The Court added, “In any event, the prosecution always has the right to take necessary and proper steps in such a case.”

After considering the material on record, the Court stated, “Keeping in mind the safeguards required while granting anticipatory bail, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has prima facie made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.”

The Court ordered, “Accordingly, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in FIR No.503/2025 dated 13.08.2025 registered at PS.: Punjabi Bagh, Delhi under Sections 306/34 of the IPC. In case of his arrest, the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with one surety of the like amount by a family member/ friend having no criminal case pending against him and further subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/S.H.O.”

Also Read: Chronic Degenerative Diseases Qualify As "Severe Illness" Under Railway Board Circulars; Penal Rent Imposed For Retention Of Government Accommodation Cannot Be Sustained: Delhi HC

“Applicant shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the concerned Court and shall ordinarily reside at the address as per TCR. Applicant shall surrender his Passport, if any, to the IO within three days of his release. If he does not possess the same, he shall file an affidavit before the I.O. to that effect. Applicant shall join and participate in the investigation as and when called by the IO. Applicant shall provide all his mobile numbers to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times. Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case.”

“Accordingly, the present application is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned S.H.O. for information and compliance thereof. Needless to say, observations made hereinabove, if any, on the merits of the matter are purely for the purposes of adjudicating the present application and shall not be construed as expressions on the merits therein.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sarthak Tomar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms. Upasna Bakshi and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocates.

Case Title: Ujjwal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1623
Case Number: Bail Appln. 4493/2025
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee