The High Court of Punjab and Haryana reaffirmed that to attract Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), there must be clear instigation with sufficient proximity and intensity, as enunciated by the Supreme Court. Mere allegations, without concrete evidence of instigation, may not justify continued detention. This judgment upholds established Supreme Court precedent and sets binding authority for bail considerations in abetment of suicide cases under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/57905/2025 of JAI BHAGWAN Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011644872025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure/Bail—Abetment of Suicide Under IPC & BNSS, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | What is the threshold for granting regular bail in Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) cases post BNSS, 2023? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that for Section 306 IPC, the allegation must show sufficient mens rea and instigation in close proximity and with intensity as per Supreme Court precedent. The trial court is to assess rival contentions about the applicability of Section 306 during trial; mere allegation coupled with no risk of absconding or evidence tampering warrants bail. Pre-trial detention should not be prolonged where investigation is complete and conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of abetment are not clearly met on the face of the record. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Supreme Court in Mohit Singhal & Another v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, 2024 (1) RCR (Criminal) 722 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Cited criteria for “instigation” from Supreme Court decision; considered custody already undergone, no risk of absconding or evidence tampering. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased, Rajbir, allegedly committed suicide after stating in a note that he lent ₹5.70 lakh to the petitioner, Jai Bhagwan, who failed to repay. The petitioner was arrested, investigation completed, and the charge-sheet filed; no prosecution witnesses examined yet. The petitioner has clean antecedents and has been in custody for 3 months 13 days. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Mohit Singhal & Another v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, 2024 (1) RCR (Criminal) 722 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that for bail under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prima facie indicate both mens rea and specific instigative acts in close temporal and causal proximity to the suicide.
- Cites and applies Supreme Court precedent to limit pre-trial incarceration where only allegations of debt or inducement exist.
- Clarifies the trial court’s role to examine the sufficiency of instigation in depth during trial, not at bail stage.
- Non-existence of flight risk or tampering, and completion of investigation, favored bail.
- Sets out additional bail conditions, emphasizing compliance and trial attendance.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified that the foundational legal question was whether mere allegations of debt non-payment coupled with a suicide note constitute “instigation” for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
- Relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohit Singhal & Another v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, 2024 (1) RCR (Criminal) 722, wherein it was held that “instigation must be of such intensity that the accused intended to push the deceased to a position where there is no choice but to commit suicide,” and that instigation must be in close proximity to the suicide.
- Noted that rival contentions regarding applicability of Section 306 in the case’s factual matrix raised debatable issues suitable for trial, not for determination at the bail stage.
- Considered petitioner’s clean antecedents, absence of flight risk or threat to evidence, duration of custody, and the stage of investigation (completed); held prolonged pre-trial detention unjustified.
- The Court allowed bail, attaching conditions to secure trial attendance and prevent tampering or further offences.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner has been falsely implicated and is in custody since 15.07.2025.
- Even accepting the suicide note as true, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) are not satisfied.
- Investigation is complete and challan has been filed.
- The petitioner has clean antecedents.
Respondent (State)
- The allegations are serious in nature.
- The petitioner does not deserve regular bail because of the gravity of the offence.
Factual Background
The case arises from an FIR registered on 29.04.2024 at Police Station Narnaund, District Hansi, under Section 306 IPC. The complainant’s father, Rajbir, was found dead by suicide after leaving home and consuming poison. A suicide note was recovered, blaming the petitioner, Jai Bhagwan, for not returning ₹5.70 lakh, which was allegedly borrowed for the marriage of the petitioner’s daughter. The petitioner has been in custody since 15.07.2025, investigation has concluded, and the charge-sheet has been presented. No prosecution witnesses have yet been examined.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment re-explained the threshold for abetment of suicide, emphasizing that “instigation” requires mens rea, proximate connection, and intensity as per the Supreme Court’s interpretation; not every allegation of inducement or financial dispute qualifies.
- Reference to Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Petition was moved under this new procedural code for regular bail, but substantive standards for bail remain aligned with existing precedent on Section 306 IPC.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows and applies Supreme Court precedent (Mohit Singhal & Another v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, 2024 (1) RCR (Criminal) 722).