Mere Marital Discord Not Abetment Of Suicide Without Clear Instigation: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail
|It was claimed that before his death, the deceased circulated a WhatsApp message asserting that the petitioners had harassed and poisoned him.
The Delhi High Court emphasized that routine marital discord or familial altercations do not automatically amount to the criminal offence of abetment of suicide.
The Court was considering anticipatory bail applications filed by petitioners who had been accused of abetting the suicide of a man who consumed Celphos tablets. The deceased’s wife had lodged a complaint alleging that he had engaged in unnatural sexual acts with her, and upon learning of the FIR, the man allegedly committed suicide. It was claimed that before his death, the deceased circulated a WhatsApp message asserting that the petitioners had harassed and poisoned him.
A Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja said, “In such cases, higher proof of instigation is required. Every case of suicide does not amount to abetment and therefore the Court has to see whether the conduct of the accused was such that a normal person, not merely a hyper sensitive one, would have been driven to suicide.”
The Court explained that abetment is not established through mere harassment or quarrels. Instead, it necessitates a clear act of instigation, participation in a conspiracy, or intentional aiding of the act of suicide. A higher burden of proof is required to demonstrate such involvement, especially when the deceased individual suffered from mental health conditions such as depression or bipolar disorder.
However, the petitioners countered these allegations by presenting a substantial amount of medical evidence suggesting that the deceased had a longstanding psychiatric history, including diagnoses of depression, bipolar disorder, suicidal tendencies, and episodes of abnormal behavior. They also submitted recorded conversations, which purportedly showed the deceased using abusive language against them and even threatening to fabricate charges against them via a suicide note.
The Court noted that naming individuals in a suicide note alone is insufficient to infer guilt. It must be proven that the accused’s conduct actively led the deceased to take his life. It was further held that the threshold of proof is more stringent when the deceased is mentally unstable or emotionally fragile.
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, remarking that criminal liability for abetment cannot be fastened solely on the basis of vague allegations, especially when the individual’s pre-existing mental health played a significant role in their decision to end their life.
Cause Title: Ansh Jindal & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi, [2025:DHC:3036]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Amit Chadha, Advocates Nishant Singh, Sounava Karmakar, Harjas Singh, Jyoti Bajaj and Saarthak Sethi
Respondent: Advocate Aman Usman