Justice Saurabh Banerjee grants anticipatory bail in abetment of suicide case, holding that mere refusal to marry and non-reply to WhatsApp messages, without active instigation, cannot ground a Section 306 IPC offence.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on 24 February 2026 granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of abetting the suicide of his former partner, asserting that mere refusal to marry or failure to reply to messages does not amount to instigation or abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The order was delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who emphasised that an allegation must demonstrate active and direct conduct with proximate causation to sustain an abetment charge.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death by suicide of a young woman on 9 May 2023, who allegedly hanged herself in her residence. Two suicide notes, notebooks, and the deceased’s mobile phone were recovered at the scene. A post-mortem report confirmed death due to asphyxia resulting from hanging. Forensic analysis reportedly verified that the suicide notes were in the deceased’s handwriting.
Following an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an FIR was registered in August 2025. According to the prosecution’s version, the deceased had been in a relationship with the accused for about two years, during which he allegedly promised to marry her, engaged in physical relations, and then refused to marry her, purportedly due to family objections. The suicide notes purportedly recounted these allegations.
The prosecution also pointed to WhatsApp exchanges between the deceased and the accused before the suicide, suggesting emotional distress.
Legal Issue Before the Court
The core legal question before the High Court was whether the conduct of refusing to marry or failing to reply to messages, without more, can constitute “instigation” to suicide, and thereby attract the offence under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide).
Section 306 IPC penalises acts that abet the suicide of a person, defined as suggesting, instigating, or facilitating the person to take their own life. The offence requires clear mens rea and a direct and proximate link between the accused’s conduct and the deceased’s act of suicide.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
No Active Instigation Established:
Justice Banerjee observed that the prosecution’s case largely rested on the contents of the suicide notes and the WhatsApp communications. However, the court found no credible material demonstrating that the accused actively instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. There was no evidence of threats, coercion, harassment, or inducement that would leave the victim “with no option but to end her life.”
Suicide Note Alone Insufficient:
The High Court underscored that a suicide note, by itself, is insufficient to justify refusal of bail in the absence of corroborative evidence of active instigation. The judge highlighted that the note represented the singular version of the deceased, and without more, could not sustain the inference of abetment.
WhatsApp Exchanges Do Not Establish Triggering Act:
The court noted that the WhatsApp messages exchanged prior to the suicide did not reveal any untoward conduct that could be equated with instigation according to the legal threshold required under Section 306. The mere lack of response to certain messages, including the accused’s alleged non-reply, could not be interpreted as an act of instigation.
Refusal to Marry or Non-Reply Not Sufficient:
In the absence of any active or direct conduct that could have a proximate causal link to the suicide, the court concluded that refusal to marry and non-reply to communications are not, per se, acts of abetment under the criminal law.
Bail Order and Conditions
Considering the facts and the lack of prima facie evidence against the accused, the High Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for anticipatory bail. The court directed that in the event of arrest, the accused shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and one surety of the same amount.
Justice Banerjee also emphasised that the prosecution retains the right to pursue necessary investigative steps in the case, implying that criminal proceedings would continue and be tested during trial.
Implications of the Judgment
- The ruling reiterates that abetment of suicide requires more than emotional distress or disappointment; it requires a clear act of instigation or provocation with direct impact.
- Refusal to marry or discontinuation of communication, in isolation, does not constitute abetment as per Sections 306 IPC.
- The judgment may serve as guidance in similar cases where failure of personal relationships is alleged to have led to tragic outcomes, highlighting the need for evidence of active encouragement or coercion.
- The decision aligns with recent observations that mere relationship breakdowns without active instigation cannot be criminalised.
The judgment adds clarity on the threshold of evidence required to establish abetment of suicide under criminal law, particularly in cases involving personal relationship disputes and alleged refusal to marry.
