Madhya Pradesh High Court Clarifies Matrimonial Discord Does Not Equal Abetment in Suicide Case
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made a significant ruling in a recent case, granting anticipatory bail to a 24-year-old woman accused of abetting her husband's suicide. The court emphasized that criminal liability for abetment cannot be established based solely on harassment or frustration arising from marital disputes without clear evidence of proximate instigation.
Court's Rationale for Granting Bail
Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, presiding over the case, highlighted that the material on record did not show any communication between the applicant and the deceased in close proximity to his death that could have instigated the suicide. The court referred to a Supreme Court verdict, stating, "Mere harassment or frustration due to matrimonial discord with the wife cannot be treated as abetment for suicide by the applicant wife."
The court noted several factors in favor of the applicant:
- She is a homemaker and mother of minor children, with no criminal antecedents.
- There is no likelihood of her fleeing from justice or engaging in criminal activities.
- Her incarceration could lead to social disrepute and humiliation, causing undue hardship.
- The grant of bail would not prejudice a free and fair investigation.
Case Background and Legal Arguments
The case originated from the death of the woman's husband, who was found hanging at his residence on November 24, 2025. Initially registered as an unnatural death, an FIR was later filed based on allegations from the deceased's family, accusing the wife of abetment. The prosecution argued that the husband was distressed due to matrimonial discord and alleged resistance from in-laws in sending her and their children back home.
During the investigation, a WhatsApp message was recovered where the deceased allegedly named the applicant and relatives as responsible for his death. However, the public prosecutor conceded that there was no material indicating direct instigation by the applicant close to the time of death.
Defense counsel Ratnesh Kumar Gupta argued that the applicant was being made a scapegoat due to her marital relationship. He submitted that she had been living separately for months prior to the incident, with no communication immediately before the death, and that the deceased acted out of his own emotional turmoil without instigation.
Bail Conditions and Court's Decision
The court allowed the bail application, directing that in the event of arrest, she be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with a solvent surety of the same amount. Strict conditions were imposed, including:
- Cooperation with the investigation.
- Non-interference with witnesses or evidence.
- Appearance as required by investigating agencies and the trial court.
The protection will continue until the trial concludes, subject to cancellation if conditions are breached.
This ruling underscores the legal principle that abetment requires more than general marital strife, necessitating clear evidence of instigation or intentional aid at the time of the act.
