Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjana Bhatia @ Shweta vs State Of Punjab on 6 November, 2025
CRM-M-52883-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
222 CRM-M-52883-2025
Date of Decision : 06.11.2025
RANJANA BHATIA @ SHWETA
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
Present: Ms. Dheerja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS,
has been filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.186 dated
13.08.2025 registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, at the
instance of Harmesh Lal (complainant), for the commission of offences
punishable u/s 108 of BNS.
2. Criminal proceedings in the present case were initiated against
petitioner on the statement of Harmesh Lal, a businessman by profession, son of
Chunni Lal, resident of House No.44/A, Block A, Canal View, Doraha Road,
Ludhiana, alleging therein that he has two children. His daughter Payal Sharma
is married. His son Vivek Sharmam, aged about 39 years was married earlier
1 of 9
with Mangla Sharma. Unfortunately, the couple could not live together peacefully
and thus, the marriage was legally dissolved about 03 years ago. Vivek has been
working with him(complainant) in the factory. At about 07.15 PM on 12.08.2025,
Vivek disclosed that his friend's mother is admitted in Forties Hospital, Ludhiana
and that he would be visiting the hospital to donate blood, thus, would return
back home on the following day i.e. 13.08.2025. However, when Vivek did not
return back, the family tried to contact him but his phone was switched off.
Anxiety got the better of them and thus, the family members started looking for
Vivek. Incidentally, when they went inside Vivek's room, they found red coloured
diary near the table which contained 'Suicide note' in the handwriting of Vivek. In
the note, the boy alleged that petitioner and her friend are responsible for his
death. They have harassed him. Though Shweta @ Ranjana Bhatia (present
petitioner) had sweared in the name of 'Shyam Baba' that she would never
bother/pressurize him for getting married but she has not kept her promise. Of
late, she has been harassing and blackmailing him.
Complainant, a distressed father, further mentioned in the complaint
that his son Vivek was friends with Shweta Bhatia (petitioner) and had disclosed
the girl that they cannot marry each other. Initially Shweta agreed to this but later
she started bothering and harassing his son Vivek to get married to her. Towards
the end, complainant requested the police authorities to catch hold of all those
responsible for the untimely and tragic death of his only son Vivek, as also to
initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against them.
On the basis of the said complaint, a formal case vide FIR No.186
dated 13.08.2025, under Section 108 of BNS was registered against the present
2 of 9
petitioner and her unknown friend and criminal proceedings were set into motion.
Investigation is still underway.
3. Apprehending her arrest, present petitioner had moved an application
for grant of pre-arrest bail, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana. The same was dismissed, in terms of order dated 10.09.2025.
Aggrieved of the said order, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that totally false
allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner and deceased both
of whom were legally divorced, had met on a matrimonial site. They became fond
of each other and used to meet very frequently. While drawing attention of the
Court to the copies of ''WhatsApp chats', learned counsel contended that
petitioner and deceased were indulging in intimate conversations as well. Their
relationship was more than that of just 'casual friends'. These chats reveal the
extent to which the two were emotionally attached. In one such conversation,
deceased had agreed to get married to petitioner. In fact, just before he took this
extreme step of ending his life, he had planned to have a lunch outing with her
(P). Moreover, even though in the suicide note, deceased alleged that petitioner is
blackmailing him, but the copies of 'WhatsApp' conversation between the two
does not substantiate his accusation. Initially, deceased was the person, who posed
the question of marriage but later since his father was against this relationship, he
changed his stance. Being a person of extremely sensitive nature, deceased could
not handle the emotional conflict.
In fact, conversations reveal that when deceased had refused to
marry petitioner, she had stopped responding to his calls, it was only on his
persistent calls that she attended to one such call and their talks re-started. These
3 of 9
conversations, also reveal that the two were indulging in frequent phone sex. The
content of conversations, as per learned counsel, does not indicate that deceased
was being pressurized by petitioner or that she had incited or had brought him to
such a situation in life where he had no other option but to commit suicide. No
positive overt-act, on the part of the petitioner, soon before the death of deceased,
can be inferred from these conversations. In fact one of these talks also goes to
show that petitioner had talked to father of the deceased on an earlier occasion
and had also told him (deceased) so, to which he had replied that he would
himself sort out the matter. Moreover, in the suicide note, deceased did not
highlight as to how petitioner was blackmailing him. Thus, contents of copies of
'WhatsApp' conversations when read as a whole, no prima facie case under
Section 306 IPC is made out.
In support of her contentions, learned counsel places reliance on
following judgments:-
(i) S. S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010 (12) SCC 190) of
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(ii) Sarabjeet Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, (CRM-M No. 40443 of 2022) of
Punjab and Haryana High Court.
(iii) Malkeet Kaur Vs. State of Haryana, (CRM-M No.42593 of 2024).
Summing up his arguments, learned counsel contends that the
presence of appellant is not needed for custodial interrogation, as nothing is to be
recovered from her. Nonetheless, she is ready and willing to join the
investigations as and when required by the Investigating Officer.
5. Detailed reply dated 31.10.2025 has been filed on behalf of the
complainant, which is taken on record.
4 of 9
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have
opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground
that deceased had made it clear to petitioner that he would not legalize
relationship with her but she had been persistently following him and had issued
threat that she would defame him in the society which caused immense emotional
trauma to him (deceased), who could not bear the pressure and thus, it was on
account of these threats that the deceased took this extreme step. Continuing
further, learned counsel referred to the copies of 'WhatsApp' conversation
between deceased and petitioner, which according to him, substantiate the stand
of the complainant.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel has also relied upon
the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Neha Vs. State of
Haryana, (CRM-M No.19228-2023). Learned counsel, thus, submits that in view
of seriousness and gravity of offence, custodial interrogation of petitioner is
needed to find out about her other friend, who was also involved in the incident.
Dismissal of the present petition is prayed for.
6. Before expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions
raised by both, learned counsel for accused-petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor for the State accompanied by learned counsel for complainant, it
would be most appropriate to go through certain relevant judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court on the issue in hand:-
In recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhinav Mohan
Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, (2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 871), it has
been observed as under:-
5 of 9
"22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein
before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued
over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section
107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide
was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate
incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life.
Figuratively, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'; that final event, in a series,
that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of
suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual
predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a
particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim
was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme
act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation
constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in
the mind of the victim.
23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to
take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a
finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What
constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as
discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances,
which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the
accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the
victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide
occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and
circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on
the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship
between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from
another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious
deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there
cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.
24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to "go, kill yourself"; often a
rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have
the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no
uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many
stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at
times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed
and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly
6 of 9
discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions
under Section 306."
In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also explained the parameters of Section 306 in following
words:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an
accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence
adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted
out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to
her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of
suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive
action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the (2010) 1 SCC 707
accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13. In order to bring a case within
the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or
by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of
abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and
established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC."
These principles and necessary ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of
Indian Penal Code were reiterated and summarized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
recent case of Gurucharan Singh vs State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200.
"13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts
below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial
pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the
marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission
of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the
allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role
or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing
suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of
the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation
7 of 9
suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of
suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased
to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her
husband."
Similarly, in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
(DOD: 17.01.2025, 2025 INSC 76, in para No.20, the Hon'ble Apex Court,
observed as under:
"20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the
higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read
with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They
however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to
be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved
in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision
should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate
feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed
accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the
unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point
of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed
in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to
commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid
down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the
abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should
exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe
syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in
a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306."
This being the settled position of law on the subject in issue, it is
equally settled that the grant of anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy, which
can be availed by the accused if he/she is able to make out a case of exceptional
depravity/hardship in his/her favour. In the case in hand, in view of the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the documents
available on record but without further commenting on the merits of the case,
the Court is of the opinion that petitioner has been able to make out the case of
8 of 9
exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour, entitling for the grant of this extra
ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section
482(2) BNSS. Further the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when
required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by
Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioner; she will not tamper with the
evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without
prior permission of the Court.
7. The petition stands allowed.
(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
JUDGE
06.11.2025
Nisha Yadav
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
