The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a woman accused of abetting the suicide of a man who recorded a video before his death alleging she demanded Rs 2 lakh and threatened to implicate him in a false rape case. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, hearing the bail plea, observed that the prosecution's allegations, coupled with the suicide video, prima facie established abetment to suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Case Background and Allegations
The case originates from an FIR registered on March 11, 2026, at Kapurthala City police station. The victim's mother alleged that her son, a plumber educated up to Class 8, had been in a relationship with the petitioner for about one-and-a-half years. She claimed the petitioner blackmailed him for money and, about 15 days before the incident, demanded Rs 2 lakh. The victim later learned she was a married woman whose divorce had not yet been finalized.
On March 10, 2026, the victim told his mother that the petitioner threatened to register a rape case against him if he did not pay Rs 2 lakh. His mother suggested they address the matter in a panchayat the next morning. However, during the night, the victim hanged himself from a ceiling fan using a bedsheet. The mother found his body and then checked his mobile phone, discovering a video recorded just before his death. In the video, he stated he was committing suicide after being troubled by the petitioner and held her responsible for his death. She also alleged that the petitioner's relatives had threatened him over the phone.
Court's Observations and Legal Reasoning
Justice Bedi emphasized that the allegations of demanding Rs 2 lakh and threatening to implicate the deceased in a false rape case, along with the suicide video recorded on March 11, 2026, immediately before the suicide, prima facie amounted to abetment. The court stated that the offence under Section 108 BNS was established and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required to carry the investigation to its logical conclusion.
The petitioner's counsel argued that she had been falsely implicated, contending that there must be proof of direct or indirect instigation or incitement in close proximity to the suicide to attract the offence of abetment. Counsel relied on undertakings dated October 13 and October 27, 2025, which showed that the deceased had been asked not to contact the petitioner, not the other way around. It was also submitted that the petitioner was willing to join the investigation and deserved anticipatory bail.
Opposing the plea, the state referred to the status report and argued that the petitioner's conduct amounted to active instigation and abetment, making custodial interrogation necessary. The court rejected the bail plea, finding no merit in the petition.
Conclusion and Clarification
Justice Bedi dismissed the anticipatory bail application but clarified that his observations were confined to deciding the bail plea and would not influence the trial court's adjudication based on the evidence presented. The case highlights the legal implications of threats and demands leading to suicide, with the court treating the suicide video as crucial evidence in establishing abetment.
