Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Assam on 20 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010167812025
2025:GAU-AS:11073
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2438/2025
DINESH SHARMA MEDHI
SON OF LATE SADANANDA SHARMA MEDHI,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 198(A), RAJGARH ROAD, NEAR BIHUTOLI, P.S.
CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K MAHAJAN, MR. D BORA,MS. P S
CHAKRABORTY,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS,MR. A CHAUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A S CHOUDHURY (FOR INFORMANT),MD A
RAHMAN (FOR INFORMANT),MR. SURAJIT DAS (FOR INFORMANT),MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ
(FOR INFORMANT),MR A W AMAN (FOR INFORMANT)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 20.08.2025.
Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing on behalf of
the respondent State and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the
informant.
Page No.# 2/18
This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant
of bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Sri Dinesh Sharma Medhi, who has
been arrested on 23.07.2025, in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No.
188/2025, under Sections 108/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
The case diary is received and perused the same.
It is submitted by Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that
the present petitioner is innocent and no way connected with the alleged
offence. The unfortunate incident happened on 22.07.2025 and prior to the said
incident, the petitioner had joined in his new place of posting on 05.07.2025 and
he handed over charge on 04.07.2025. From the suicide note and the FIR itself,
it is seen that pressure was on her and even if it is considered that there was
some pressure on her from the accused petitioner, in that case also it cannot be
any proximity of committing suicide, as 18 days prior to the said incident, the
present petitioner took charge in Nalbari District. Though the prayer for police
remand of the petitioner was initially rejected on 23.07.2025, after his arrest but
subsequently, vide order dated 29.07.2025, there was a police remand of the
petitioner and after completion of the said police remand, the I.O. never asked
for further remand of the petitioner. More so, from the forwarding report of the
present petitioner shows that he was arrested only on public demand and for
the media. Further he submitted that 66% of the work was completed, which
was a project of Rs. 7.21 crore and bill for an amount of Rs. 4.96 crore was
passed and the bill for remaining part is yet to be passed by the concerned
department. The petitioner had no telephonic conversation or made any contact
with the deceased and his last communication over telephone was in the month
of May and thereafter he had no communication with the deceased and that
Page No.# 3/18
apart, 18 days prior to the incident, as stated above, he joined in his new place
of posting in Nalbari District. Further, it is submitted that there are several Sub-
Divisions under the present petitioner and he had to look after the overall
functions and supervisions of the works under all the Sub-Divisions and the
Assistant Engineer is to look after the execution of the works under its control
and monitoring of the works and preparation of the bills of the work are also
under the domain of the said officer. If any bill has been passed, it was only the
deceased who passed the bill, as it was under her control and domain. Thus,
there are no ingredients to fulfill Section 45 of the BNS, 2023 i.e. the abetment
or instigation to attract Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, against the present
petitioner.
Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if there is
any illegality in the work or in submitting bills etc., the deceased could have
informed her higher authority or could have lodged complaint before the police,
if she was under mental pressure to do some illegal acts.
In that context, Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner also
relied on the same decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as cited by Mr. A.K.
Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application
No.2411/2025 (Md. Aminul Islam), in the case of Mohit Singhal and another vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1598 and
basically stressed on para 10 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"10. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the
suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased
to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent
from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose.
The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is
Page No.# 4/18
no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of
suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to
instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in
trouble due to her bad habits".
Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Nipun Aneja and others
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091, and
emphasized on para 11, 12 and 15 of the said judgment and para 15 of the said
judgment reads as under:
"15 In the decision of this Court in case of Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal,
reported in (2005) 2 SCC 659, an employee of a company was transferred from
one place to another. However, he failed to join. Thereafter, he sent a letter of
resignation expressing his grievance against stagnancy to salary and unpleasant
situation. The company accepted the resignation. Thereafter, the said employee
committed suicide. He left behind a suicide note, alleging therein that Netai Dutta
and, one Paramesh Chatterjee engaged him in several wrong doings. The same
was alleged as, torture. The brother of the deceased filed complaint, against Netai
Dutta and others under Section 306 of the IPC. A learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Calcutta declined to quash the complaint. In appeal, however, this
Court while quashing the complaint, at paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as under:
"5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the
present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way
responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It
seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working
conditions at the work place. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased
after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160 B.L. Saha
Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that
the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present
appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he
was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence
under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the
commission of the crime. The parameters of the "abetment" have been
stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a
Page No.# 5/18
person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that
thing : or engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission taken
place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should have
intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The explanation to. Section
107 says that any willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of a
material-fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the
contours of "abetment".
6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two
places, there is no reference of any-act or incidence where by the appellant
herein is alleged to have, committed any willful act or omission or
intentionally aided or instigated the deceased) Pranab Kumar Nag to
committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has
played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated
or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.".
Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of R. Shashirekha vs. State
of Karnataka and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 671, and emphasized
on para 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment, which read as under:
"11. From the allegations taken in the FIR at its face value, it can be seen that the
case of the appellant-complainant is that even much before her husband died, he
used to be blackmailed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. According to her, a week
before her husband's death, her husband had been receiving continuous calls from
the above persons and whenever he received such calls, he was completely upset
and had decided to commit suicide.
12. If the version of the appellant-complainant is to be accepted, the question
remains as to why she kept silent from 14th April 2024 till 22nd May 2024. If her
husband was upset a week before his death, whenever he received calls from
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and if he was blackmailed by the said respondents, then
nothing could prevent the appellant-complainant from reporting this matter to the
police immediately after the deceased committed suicide. Thus, it is apparent from
the material on record that all these allegations were an afterthought.
Page No.# 6/18
13. Assuming that the allegations are true, even otherwise, the case under Section
306 of IPC would not be made out. Recently, this Court in a case of Prakash and
Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another1 in which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a
Member has considered all the earlier judgments with regard to Section 306 of
IPC. After referring to the earlier judgments, this Court has observed thus:
"31. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court, under
similar circumstances, had quashed the chargesheet under Section 306 of
the IPC against the accused- appellant. A factor that had weighed with the
Court in the said case was that there was a time gap of 48 hours being the
alleged instigation and the commission of suicide. This Court held that the
deceased was a victim of his own conduct, unconnected with the quarrel
that had ensued between him and the appellant, 48 hours prior to the
commission of his suicide.
32. In the case at hand, taking the allegations in the FIR at face value, the
incident at the mahalokadalat had occurred on 17th February 2015, while
the deceased had committed suicide on 20th March 2015. There is a clear
gap of over a month between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the
commission of suicide. We therefore find that the courts below have
erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the
deceased was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the
mahalokadalat.
................
34. .......The cardinal principle of the subject-matter at hand is that there
must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the
accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The close
proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of
instigation and the act of suicide. As was held in the case of Sanju @
Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the deceased had taken the words of the
appellants seriously, a time gap between the two incidents would have
given enough time to the deceased to think over and reflect on the matter.
As such, a gap of over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the
nexus or the proximate link between the two acts".
Citing the above referred judgments, it is submitted by Mr. Mahajan,
Page No.# 7/18
learned counsel for the petitioner that to fulfill an offence under Section 306 of
the IPC (corresponding to Section 108 of the BNS, 2023) would stands only if
there is an abetment for commission of the crime. And as per Section 107 of the
IPC (corresponding to Section 45 of the BNS, 2023), a person abets to do a
thing, who instigate any person to do that thing or engages with one or more
other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act
or illegal omission taken place in pursuant to that conspiracy, or the person
should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission.
But in the instant case, there is no evidence that the present petitioner
had abetted or instigated the victim to commit suicide or to take such an
extreme step. He further submitted that the mental pressure, as per the
allegation, exerted on the victim was about 8/9 months ago and that apart, the
present petitioner had joined at his new place of posting much prior to the date
of incident. Thus, there cannot be any close proximity to the incident of suicide
to rope the present petitioner with the offence as alleged in the FIR.
Citing the above judgments, it is submitted by Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned
counsel for the petitioner that here in the instant case there is no materials to
prove that there was any abetment from the side of the present petitioner nor
he played any active part which led the deceased to take such extreme step.
Moreover, the accused petitioner is in custody since last 28 days and considering
his length of detention also, he may be released on bail. The I.O. has also not
asked for any further remand of the accused petitioner and thus, further
custodial interrogation may not be required in the present case. However, the
petitioner is ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation
of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of bail.
Page No.# 8/18
Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted in
this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present
accused petitioner and from the suicide note itself, it is seen that the deceased
was under mental stress as there was tremendous pressure exerted on her by
the present accused petitioner along with other co-accused. The deceased never
received any assistance from her senior officers including the present accused
petitioner. Rather, she was under constant mental pressure and the only
concerned of the present accused petitioner and other accused persons was to
pass the bills, without completion of the work, where there was major variations
in the descriptions of the work, in connection with the construction of the Mini
Stadium at Bongaigaon. Further he stated that substandard materials were used
for construction which otherwise breached the trust of the State. He further
submitted that from the note of the I.O. and from the materials from the case
diary, it is also seen that in spite of the transfer of the present accused
petitioner, he put tremendous mental pressure on the deceased to pass the
inflated bills, even before his transfer order. He further stated that it is not a
case of inter relation between two persons but a public servant committed
suicide in an exceptional situations/ circumstances. Thus, it is one of the
exceptional case, wherein the victim had to take extreme step only due to
mental pressure exerted on her and the trauma she faced while she was
entrusted with the work of construction of the Mini Stadium at Bongaigaon. He
further stated that there are sufficient materials, so far collected by the I.O.
which reveals that the present accused petitioner also had regular talk with the
deceased, even he sent some voice messages to the victim, creating
tremendous mental pressure on her. Some of the mobile phones which were
seized from the custody of the present accused petitioner, have already been
Page No.# 9/18
sent for Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, wherefrom the reports are
yet to be received.
Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam relied upon
the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (1) Chitresh Kumar
Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605,
and (2) of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , reported in (2017) 7 SCC
780.
In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in para 22 has held that: "22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note,
extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation,
tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the
appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something
which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the
appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option
except to end his life and, therefore, clause firstly of Section 107 of the IPC was
attracted.".
In the case of Pawan Kumar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para
44 has held that: "44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his
continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the
accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any
material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life
quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the
accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the
Page No.# 10/18
victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in
fact, induced her to extinguish her life-spark."
Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam further
submitted that it is a well settled position of law that the Court while granting
bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail, detail examination of evidence and
elaborate documentation of merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is
need to indicate in such orders reason for prima facie concluding while bail was
being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a
serious offence [(2004) 7 SCC 528, reported in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh
Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another].
Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam further relied
on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal vs.
Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118, wherein in
para 24 of the said judgment, it has been held as under:
"24 In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan, a two judge Bench of this Court
was required to assess the correctness of a decision of a High Court enlarging the
accused on bail. Justice Santosh Hegde, speaking for the Court, discussed the law
on the grant of bail in non-bailable offences and held:
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court
granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged
of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would
suffer from non- application of mind.‖ (Emphasis supplied)".
Page No.# 11/18
Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, Assam that considering the nature of the offence and the materials
available in the case diary, the present accused petitioner may not be granted
with bail at this stage and his further custodial detention may be required for
the purpose of investigation, which is at the initial stage.
Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted in
this regard that the FIR was lodged by the younger sister of the deceased who
had contact with the deceased on each and every day and the deceased used to
report before her as to how she received tremendous pressure from the
Department and from the accused persons including the present accused
petitioner and the pressure under which she had to discharge her official duty.
He further submitted that it is a fact that she could have raised her voice and
could have make complaint before the authority against her senior officers or
before the police but it is not so easy to take such a stand against the senior
officers who are creating immense mental pressure on her. He further submitted
that the deceased could not bring all the allegations and materials in her suicide
note as she was not a legal expert to put all the ingredients in her suicide note
or she was also not under any expectation that after her death, the matter will
raise before the Court of law. The deceased was under systematic pressure
continuously for about 8/9 months and thus, it cannot be said that there was no
close proximity to the date of committing suicide, as there was continuous
pressure on her since 8/9 months, which compelled her to take such extreme
step to end her life. She was always pressurized to prepare the inflated bills and
to pass all the bills by all the accused persons. She was being harassed regularly
even after the transfer of some of the senior officers/accused persons over
telephone. The learned counsel for the informant further submitted that it is not
Page No.# 12/18
a case that the deceased was under pressure before 8/9 months, but it is a case
wherein she was undergoing tremendous mental pressure and even she had
panic attacks for continuously 8/9 months, which led her to commit suicide.
Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the informant further
submitted that abetment or instigation may be different in every case, which
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In every case, there may
not be any direct act but if there is any indirect act which led the deceased to
commit suicide will also fulfil the ingredients of abetment/instigation to attract
Section 108 of the BNS, 2023.
He further submitted that this case can be considered as a special case
wherein a public servant committed suicide due to continuous pressure exhorted
upon her by the persons of her own department, including the architect and the
contractor. He further submitted that no leniency should be shown in such
nature of cases, otherwise wrong message will go to the society. Further he
submitted that all the accused persons are influential persons and hence, the
probability of hampering or tampering the evidence as well as the investigation
also cannot be denied at this stage, if the present accused petitioner is allowed
to go on bail.
The deceased was under continuous systemic pressure to do some illegal
acts for passing such inflated bills and the only intention of all the accused
persons were to pass the bills through the victim by creating immense mental
pressure on her. Mr. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the informant accordingly
submitted that a person is stated to be instigated another person when he/she
actively suggests or stimulates him to do an act by any means or language,
Page No.# 13/18
which may be direct or indirect and the instigation may be in by words or may
be by the conduct.
Here, in the instant case, it is seen that the conduct of the present
accused petitioner, who created the mental pressure and agony to the deceased
continuously since 8/9 months from the starting of the project, which fulfills the
ingredients of Section 45 of the BNS, 2023 i.e. abetment for committing suicide.
In that context, Mr. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the informant relied on a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ude Singh and others vs.
State of Haryana, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, wherein in para 14.2, it is held
as under:
" 14.2. In the case of Pawan Kumar (supra), the allegation against the accused
was that as he had eloped with the deceased girl, he thought that she was
responsible for the criminal proceedings against him by her family and hence,
subjected her to abject teasing despite she standing with him and having him
acquitted of the offences imputed. On one occasion, while the deceased was
staying at her parent's home, he threatened to kidnap her and this led to her
pouring kerosene over herself and setting herself ablaze. In her dying declaration,
she wrote a letter narrating that the accused was responsible for the step that she
had taken. Though the Trial Court had acquitted the accused of all charges, on
appeal, the order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court and the accused
was convicted under Section 306 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years together with fine. In further appeal,
another three-Judge Bench of this Court upheld the order of the High Court with
reference to the principles relating to the offence of abetment of suicide. This
Court referred to several decisions, including that in the case Ramesh
Kumar (supra), and observed, inter alia, as under:
34. The word ''abetment'' has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this
context, the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is
pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of
Page No.# 14/18
suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of
another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to
be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental
element.......
xxx xxx xxx
36. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he
actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or
indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation
or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or maybe by (implied)
conduct.
37. The word "urge forwards" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody
to do something, to make a person to move more quickly in the particular
direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person
instigating another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the intention
to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove
abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the
deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual remark or
something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or
misunderstood as "abetment".
xxx xxx xxx
43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address
whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that
mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is
likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the
purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn
the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for
the victim to put an end to life.
44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course
of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused
Page No.# 15/18
have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any
material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim
belonged. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the
self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit
suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her
life spark.
45. ..............................
46. ..............................".
Accordingly, Mr. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the informant raised
vehement objection and submitted that the present accused petitioner may not
be granted with bail at this stage.
After hearing the submission made by learned counsel for the both sides, I
have thoroughly perused the case diary and the report of the I.O., including the
bail objection filed by the I.O., to know the involvement of the present petitioner
in the instant case.
From the case diary, it reveals that during investigation, the I.O. has
collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner and
from the materials available in the case diary and from the report of the I.O., it
is also seen that the deceased was in tremendous mental pressure, while she
was asked to sign these bills and certificates by her controlling officer i.e. the
present accused petitioner along with other co-accused. These matters were
also communicated through her WhatsApp to her family members, friends and
other official persons. Further, from the note of the I.O., it is also seen that the
time frame between the submission of the running bill (27.06.2025) and her
Page No.# 16/18
suicide (22.07.2025) is less than one month and thus, she was under immediate
threat and pressure for clearing/passing all those bills and the present petitioner
along with other co-accused also signed the running bills for an amount of
Rs.2,25,84,492/- (Rupees two crore twenty five lakh eighty four thousands four
hundred ninety two) only in favour of the contractor.
The deceased had also wrote to M/s. Aesthetic Creations regarding the
use of substandard materials but she was forcibly asked to sign those bills and
certificate by her controlling officer, including the present petitioner and she
communicated all these things through her WhatsApp to her friends and family
members. That apart, she was under immense threat and pressure from her
superior officers and other co-accused persons to pass those inflated bills. The
present accused petitioner was working as the SDO, Bongaigaon Sub-Division
and the other superior officers also signed those running bills, without any
completion of the work and in spite of her repeated reminders of using some
sub-standard materials, she was asked to put her signature on those bills, as
their only intention was to clear all those bills and the present petitioner, even
before his transfer he made immense mental pressure on the victim to sign the
bills. Further, it is seen that during the CDR analysis, the present petitioner was
in constant touch with the deceased over phone as well as in WhatsApp and
even though, he was transferred from Bongaigaon and handed over charge on
04.07.2025, he was still supervising the work and used to pressurize the
deceased to clear all the bills of the said project. Thus, she was under the
pressure to do some illegitimate work and undue influences were over her to
pass those bills.
Further, it reveals from the case diary that the present petitioner along
Page No.# 17/18
with other co-accused had asked the deceased to prepare a working estimate
and exhorted pressure on her, for which she had to prepare a working estimate
which was forwarded by the present petitioner but the said working estimate
was not approved by the office of the Chief Executive Engineer but in the
meantime, they have released the bill amount of Rs.2,25,84,492/- (Rupees two
crore twenty five lakh eighty four thousands four hundred ninety two) only in
favour of the contractor and the present petitioner along with other co-accused
were also in hurry to release the bill amount to get their commission which also
traumatized the deceased, as she was under pressure to do some illegitimate
works, which created tremendous pressure on her which she could not bear and
ultimately took such extreme step. Some of the deleted and edited WhatsApp
chats are also to be retrieved and analyzed by the Forensic Experts. Further, it is
seen that the deceased was under the mental agony and pressure since last 8/9
months and she was forced to do some illegitimate works, only with a view to
pass the running bills, to get the commission by the present petitioner along
with the other co-accused and thus, it cannot be said that there was no close
proximity to the date of committing suicide, as it reveals from the materials in
the case diary that she was under tremendous mental pressure since last 8/9
months, which compelled her to take such extreme steps. Such mental pressure
which was exerted on her, which bound the deceased to commit suicide can be
held as instigation or abetment, as per Section 45 of the BNS, 2023. It is further
a settled position of law that in every case, there may not be direct act but the
indirect act of the accused person may also fulfill the ingredients of
abetment/instigation to attract Section 108 of the BNS, 2023. Further, it is not a
case due to some personal relationship or some family pressure etc. the
deceased committed suicide but it is a case wherein a public servant committed
Page No.# 18/18
suicide, who was pressurized to do some illegal acts and she was compelled to
pass some inflated bills, even after transfer of the petitioner, who was always in
touch through telephone and WhatsApp call with the deceased.
It is also seen from the materials available in the case diary that the
present accused petitioner was in touch with the deceased over telephone but
all those WhatsApp chats, which was available in his mobile was deleted by him
and hence, the deleted WhatsApp chats have to be retrieved and analyzed by
the Forensic Experts, which will definitely enlighten some other facts involved in
the alleged offence.
Considering all these aspects of the case and the gravity of the offence,
this Court is of the opinion that the period of detention already undergone by
the accused person cannot be the sole ground to consider the bail application
for the present petitioner. The investigation is still under process and further
custodial interrogation may be required to unearth some more facts, involved in
this case.
In view of this, I do not find it proper to allow the accused petitioner to go
on bail at this stage and hence rejected.
Send back the case diary forthwith.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
