P&H High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail In Abetment To Suicide Case Says Woman's Unnatural Death Near Marriage Can't Be Taken Lightly

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to accused mother-in-law of the deceased in an abetment to suicide case, observing that a woman's unnatural death shortly after marriage cannot be taken lightly. The deceased woman had been married in January 2025, and her sudden death within months raised serious concerns that warranted a thorough investigation, the Court noted.

It was alleged that the woman was harassed by her Mather-in-law, husband, and sister-in-law. They allegedly taunted and mentally tortured that compelled her to take extreme step of ending her life.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil took serious noted of the fact that "the present case revolves around the unfortunate occurrence of an unnatural death of a young woman who had been married on 24.01.2025 and is alleged to have committed suicide under distressing circumstances. Such a factual matrix cannot be viewed in isolation, as the law itself attaches a presumption of law to unnatural deaths of this nature."

The bench further pointed that under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA, 2023), when a woman dies an unnatural death within a short span after her marriage, particularly where allegations of cruelty or harassment by her husband or in-laws exist, a presumption arises against those accused of such conduct, shifting the initial burden of explanation upon them.

It explained that the statutory presumption underscores the legislature's intent to safeguard married women from cruelty and harassment that may drive them to take their own lives. Therefore, in the present case, given the proximity of the marriage and the circumstances leading to the death, the Court cannot lightly brush aside the allegations or extend the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

It was contended that the deceased was residing happily with her in-laws, maintained regular contact with her family, and there was no conflict between the families. There is no proof of any dowry demand or evidence of harassment, even the suicide note does not implicate the petitioner.

Furthermore, it was asserted that the co-accused persons have been granted bail, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and poses no risk of fleeing.

On the other hand, the State counsel submitted that mere assertions of willingness to cooperate, absence of criminal antecedents, or the fact that co-accused have been granted bail cannot be sufficient grounds for extending the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving the unnatural death of a young married woman within a short period of marriage.

After hearing the submission the Court pointed that, the crux of section 46 is that intention of the accused should be to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

To convict a person under Section 108 BNS (Abetment to suicide), there has to be clear mens rea to commit an offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. 

The Court rejected the argument of seeking bail on parity with the co-accused i.e the father in law of the deceased who has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by lower court. The bench said that the petitioner is not similarly situated as the co accused was not initially named in the FIR but was named later on.

Considering the gravity of the allegations, the involvement of multiple family members, and the need to ensure a fair and thorough inquiry, the Court opined that "custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with at this stage."

Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Verma, Addl. A.G, Punjab.

Title: XXXX v. XXX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 414