Mere Refusal to Marry not sufficient for Offence of Abetment to Suicide, Rules HC

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of abetting the suicide of a woman in FIR registered at Punjabi Bagh Police Station under Section 306 and Section 34 of the IPC. The case stems from the woman’s death by hanging in May 2023, with her parents alleging that the accused had misled her with a promise of marriage. The ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in cases where criminal liability is sought to be fastened primarily on suicide notes.

According to the prosecution, two handwritten notes recovered from the scene blamed the accused and his family for withdrawing from a proposed marriage after a two-year relationship. The parents moved the trial court under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to registration of the FIR in August 2025. The State argued that the suicide notes, supported by forensic confirmation of handwriting, and certain WhatsApp exchanges showed emotional distress linked to the accused’s alleged refusal to respond to her calls and messages.

It was also claimed that he had not fully cooperated during investigation and had failed to produce his mobile phone. The defence countered that mere refusal to marry does not constitute abetment, and that the digital chats did not reflect any instigation or coercive conduct.

The High Court observed that the prosecution case largely rested on the contents of the suicide notes and that there was no material demonstrating a direct or proximate act of instigation. The Court noted that the WhatsApp exchanges did not disclose any overt act attributable to the accused beyond alleged non-response. In a key observation, the Court held, “There are thus no active/ clear act of instigation/ abetment having a direct and proximate link to the commission of suicide.”

It further remarked that dissatisfaction with the accused’s responses during investigation cannot by itself justify denial of bail. Finding a prima facie case for protection, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including furnishing a bond of Rs.1 lakh, surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, and non-interference with witnesses.

Case Title: Ujjwal Vs. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
Case No.: Bail Appln. 4493/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Sarthak Tomar, 
Advocate for the Respondent:  Adv. Satish Kumar, Adv. APP, Adv. Upasna Bakshi. Adv. Divya Bakshi, Adv. SI Naresh Kumar,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com