Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mumtaz vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:48673]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2084/2025
Mumtaz D/o Shri Deen Mohammad, Aged About 35 Years, W/o
Shri Mohammad Asif @ Sheru, R/o Durga Colony, Ramdev Road,
Pali. Presently Residing At Shekhawat Nagar, Pali, Ps- Kotwali
Prali, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged At Jodhpur Jail)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Gajra Devi W/o Shri Bhagwan Chand, R/o Chamunda
Nagar, Punayata Road, Pali, Kotwali, Pali, District Pali
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.C. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
Mr. Pravin Kumar Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Judgment
(i) Arguments concluded on: 12/11/2025
(ii) Judgment reserved on: 12/11/2025
(iii) Full judgment/Operative part: Full judgment
(iv) Judgment pronounced on : 17/11/2025
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant
against the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned Special
Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No.761/2025, whereby
the bail application preferred Section 483 of BNSS (Section 439
Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48673] (2 of 10) [CRLAS-2084/2025]
2. The appellant is in custody in connection with F.I.R.
No.289/2025, registered at P.S. Kotwali Pali, District Pali for the
offences under Sections 308(2), 108, 61(2)(a) of BNS and
Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary
for the disposal of this petition are that Respondent No. 2 filed a
complaint at Kotwali Police Station, Pali, stating that the
complainant is a widow and elderly lady with a son named
Kantilal, who has two sons, Abhishek and Mohit. According to the
complainant, a woman named Mumtaz, wife of Sher Mohammad,
was in contact with Kantilal via social media. She allegedly
developed a relationship with him, however later on she
pressurized him, and extorted money, which caused Kantilal
significant mental distress. On 28 May 2025, the complainant and
her son Kantilal went to Jaitaran, while Kantilal's wife, who is
suffering from tuberculosis, also went to her maternal home. After
staying for some time, Kantilal told his mother that he was going
to Pali and returned home. After reaching Pali, he committed
suicide. Neighbours informed the complainant's brother-in-law
Kamlesh and her other son Ravi, who broke open the door and
found Kantilal's body. Around that time, Mumtaz was reportedly
calling Kantilal and using abusive language. On the basis of these
facts, FIR No. 289/2025 was registered at Police Station Kotwali,
District Pali.
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48673] (3 of 10) [CRLAS-2084/2025]
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the present matter solely
on the basis of circumstantial evidence, with no direct proof
implicating her.
5. It is further contended that Kantilal, the complainant's son,
had harassed her via social media platforms, and any interactions
with him were limited to minor transactions within family and
social circles. It is submitted that Kantilal also had certain disputes
with his wife, who suffers from tuberculosis and was residing at
her parental home.
6. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors v. The
State of Maharastra and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
3835 wherein the Hon'ble court has observed that:
"14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time
and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of
abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect
acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in
close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such
instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that
he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of
this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally
aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under
Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without
such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the
face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained.
Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48673] (4 of 10) [CRLAS-2084/2025]
accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit
suicide."
7. Learned Counsel has further placed his reliance upon the
judgment passed by Co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of
Ram Kumar vs State of Rajasthan and Ors passed in S.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 486/2023 dated 26.05.2023 and
Deepesh vs State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 21/2024 dated 26.02.2024.
8. It is further contended that the appellant has been in
custody since 29.05.2025. Investigation is complete, the challan
has been filed, and no recovery is pending against her, and the
trial may take considerable time to conclude, therefore she may
be released on bail.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that there are specific allegations
that she used abusive language against the deceased over phone
calls; threatened him to leak his intimate videos and extorted
money, record of which has been placed before this court;
consequently instigated him to commit suicide, therefore, looking
to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the appellant,
she may not be enlarged on bail.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public
Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent.
11. Before going to the factual matrix of the present case, it
becomes necessary to examine the statutory scheme under
Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter,
"BNS"). The old Indian Penal Code, 1860 has now been replaced
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48673] (5 of 10) [CRLAS-2084/2025]
by the BNS, 2023. The former Section 306 IPC corresponds to
Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, and similarly, Section 107 IPC has
been substituted by Section 45 of the BNS, 2023. A comparative
reading reveals that there is no material deviation in the
substantive definitions. Therefore, for the purposes of this order,
reference to both the earlier provisions as well as the newly
enacted provisions shall be made.
Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 provides as under:
"108. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets
the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of ei-
ther description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
A plain reading of the above provision demonstrates that, to at-
tract the ingredients of Section 108 BNS, 2023, the prosecution
must establish the following:
(i) that a person has committed suicide; and
(ii) that the commission of such suicide was abetted by
the accused.
Thus, an offence under Section 108 BNS, 2023 is made out only
when the act of suicide is preceded by, or is a result of, abetment
attributable to the accused. The parameter of "abetment" have
been outlined in Section 45 of the BNS, 2023, which reads as fol-
lows:
"45. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who:
(1) instigates any person to do that thing; or
(2) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance
of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(3) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful con-
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48673] (6 of 10) [CRLAS-2084/2025]
cealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes
or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing."
A conjoint reading of Section 107 IPC and Section 45 BNS, 2023
makes it evident that a person can be held liable for abetment if:
(i) he instigates another person to commit the act; or (ii) he en-
ters into a conspiracy for the commission of the act and some
overt act or illegal omission pursuant to such conspiracy; or (iii)
he intentionally aids, through act or illegal omission, the commis-
sion of the act. The explanation given in Section 45 further clari-
fies that wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material
fact, which a person is legally bound to disclose, may also amount
to instigation.
12. It thus emerges that under each of these categories, the
prosecution must demonstrate a proximate and direct nexus be-
tween the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide. In other
words, some positive act, overt conduct, or intentional aid be said
to have directly led the deceased to commit suicide is indispens-
able for constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC or its corre-
sponding provision, Section 108 of the BNS, 2023.
13. This court has considered the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors (Supra)
and by the Co-ordinate bench of this court in Ram Kumar (Supra)
and Deepesh (Supra).
14. We have further delve into the Judgements passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs.
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48673] (7 of 10) [CRLAS-2084/2025]
The State of Maharastra & Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024 dated 18.08.2025, wherein, while
talking about the test to ascertain mens-rea it was held that:
13. It is very pertinent that a reading of the above decisions would only
indicate that always a proximate incident or act prior to the suicide was
held to be a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a direct
causation of the acts of the person accused of abetting the suicide. We
think it apt to look at the decisions discussed in Ude Singh [(2019) 17
SCC 301] . Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]
which was a case in which the husband pursuant to a quarrel asked the
wife to go wherever she pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This
Court opined that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt
that she could do nothing but kill herself.It was held so in paragraph 20:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily
and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused
had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation
may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation."
[underlining in all the extracts, by us, for emphasis]
14-22 .....
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
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48673] (8 of 10) [CRLAS-2084/2025]
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 discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the
penal provisions under Section 306.
15. This court has further perused the judgement rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. passed Criminal Appeal No. 461 of
2925 dated 07.02.2025, wherein the Hon'ble court held that for
abetment of suicide, the alleged harassment has left the victim
with no other alternative but to end life:
"18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and
the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that :-
".... Those words are casual nature which are often employed
in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing
serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not
reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these
words would be carried out in all events...."
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48673] (9 of 10) [CRLAS-2084/2025]
19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to
make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of
that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a
must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of
Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment
meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put
an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be
proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707
and M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618].
20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in
Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76."
16. Having examined the record in light of the authoritative
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, this Court
finds, prima facie, that the essential element of mens rea, namely,
a conscious, deliberate, and intentional act on part of the
appellant to provoke or facilitate the commission of suicide does
not establish that the appellant's alleged conduct was so coercive,
continuous, or compelling as to deprive the deceased of all
alternatives except to resort to suicide. Even assuming the
allegations to be true for the limited purpose of bail, they do not
indicate any conduct that can reasonably be inferred as intended
to drive the deceased to end his life.
17. Therefore, after perusing the material available on record in
entirety and upon a careful consideration of the arguments
advanced at Bar, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48673] (10 of 10) [CRLAS-2084/2025]
order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the
appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
18. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No.761/2025 is set aside. It is
ordered that the accused-appellant Mumtaz D/o Shri Deen
Mohammad, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.289/2025,
registered at P.S. Kotwali Pali, District Pali, shall be released on
bail; provided she furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and
two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court
on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
19. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
424-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 06:30:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
