[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 December, 2025
CRM-M-61895-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-61895-2025
SATNAM SINGH .... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 10.12.2025
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 11.12.2025
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on 11.12.2025
the website
4 Whether only operative part of the Full
judgment is pronounced or whether the full
judgment is pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of Not applicable
full judgment and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab
****
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition has been made by the
petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') in case bearing FIR
No.218 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Section 108 of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') on the allegations that on
19.09.2025, the victim Anmol Singh was admitted in Arora Hospital as a
case of consumption of some poisonous substance and was given
1 of 5
treatment. On moving an application, his statement was recorded by the
treating doctor. The victim disclosed that he was involved in the
business of kitties/committees and had taken up kitties worth Rs.20
lakhs on the advice of the petitioner. He had spent that money. The
petitioner, thereafter, started harassing the victim due to which he was
very upset with him and had consumed a poisonous substance. The
victim died on 20.09.2025. The post-mortem of his dead body and
inquest proceedings were conducted. Apprehending his arrest, the
petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail which was
dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order
dated 28.10.2025.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. In fact the victim and his father had
taken an amount of Rs.20 lakhs from him for their domestic needs. They
had executed an agreement to return the amount so taken by 10.09.2025.
He had never harassed or threatened the victim. No pressure was put by
him on the victim for return of money. The FIR was registered against
him with the motive not to return the money. The ingredients for
commission of offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS are not at
all attracted against him. He was even extended benefit of interim bail
by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar and had
joined the same but his petition was subsequently dismissed. His
custodial interrogation is not required. He is ready to join the
investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore,
argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
2 of 5
3. Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned State
Counsel that there are serious allegations against the petitioner as he
abated suicide to the victim by continuously harassing him by raising
demand of Rs.20 lakhs which was given by way of kitty/committee and
thereby compelling him to consume some poisonous substance and to
end his life. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.
For conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, his
custodial interrogation is must. Accordingly, it is stressed that the
petition does not deserve to be allowed.
4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for both the parties.
5. As per the allegations, the victim had consumed some
poisonous substance on 19.09.2024 on being pressurized by the
petitioner to return an amount of Rs.20 lakhs as given to the victim and
on being feeling humiliated. The petitioner has been booked for
commission of offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS which is
pari materia with Section 306 of IPC. The essential ingredients for
commission of this offence are; (i) the abetment; and (ii) the intention of
the accused to aid or instigate or abet the victim to commit suicide. The
act of accused, however insulting for victim will not, by itself constitute
the abetment of suicide. It is well settled proposition of law that in order
to bring a case under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC, the person
who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must be proved to
have an active role either by instigation or by doing some certain
specific act to facilitate the commission of suicide and mere harassment
3 of 5
without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the
time of occurrence which led to suicide would not amount to offence
under Section 306 of IPC. The act of an accused, however, insulting for
the victim will not by itself constitute the abetment of suicide and there
must be some material capable of suggesting that the accused intended
by his/her act to instigate the accused to commit suicide. Reference in
this regard can be made to 'M. Arjunan Vs. The State (2019) 3 SCC
315', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made similar
observations. In the instant case, at this stage, there is no material on
record to show that the petitioner had instigated, provoked, incited,
goaded or encouraged the victim to commit suicide. It might be so that
the victim being hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance or discord took
the drastic step to end his life which prima facie does not bring the case
within the ambit of Section 108 of BNS. It is only on the basis of
thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any
conclusion can be drawn as to whether it was a case of abatement by
way of instigation, provoking or inciting the victim to commit suicide.
The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. He has joined
investigation before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Amritsar also. Given the nature of the allegations and taking into
consideration the above discussed facts peculiar to this case, this Court
is of the considered opinion that no case for pre-trial incarceration of the
petitioner is made out. Moreso, pre-trial incarceration should not be a
replica of post-conviction sentencing. Accordingly, the petitioner has
made out a case for allowing the petitioner, which is accordingly
4 of 5
allowed. The petitioner is directed to join investigation by surrendering
before the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 15
days from today and he shall also join investigation as and when
required further and shall be bound by the conditions laid down in
Section 482(2) of BNSS.
6. It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail
condition, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for
cancellation of the bail before the trial Court.
7. It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the
case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
8. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
11.12.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
