Judgment & Order (Cav):

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, Mr. D. Talukdar and Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No.2.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with Jalukbari Police Station Case No. 501/2025 under Section 74/117(2)/78 of BNS, 2023 added Section 108 of BNS, 2023.

3. This case arises out of an unfortunate incident wherein a young lady of about 28 years took the extreme step of ending her life.

4. On 16.12.2025, the informant lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Maligaon Police Out Post stating about the suicide of his daughter, namely, Nabanita Sarma on 13.12.2025. The informant mentioned that police had seized from the place of occurrence the suicide note written by his daughter before she committed suicide in which she blames a boy named Jitu Dutta entirely for her suicide. On the basis of the suicide note the informant made enquiry and it came to know that Nabanita Sharma was being physically and mentally tortured by Jitu Dutta. Moreover, on 12.12.2025 in the evening, Jitu Dutta entered in the house of the informant in absence of other member of their family and assaulted the informant's daughter Nabanita. Furthermore, the informant came to know from friends and his youngest daughter that Jitu Dutta used to follow his daughter Nabanita all the time and torture her mentally in any public place.

5. That upon receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the In-Charge of Maligaon Police Out Post forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge of Jalukbari Police Station for registering a case under proper section of law. Accordingly, on receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in- Charge of Jalukbari Police Station registered a case bearing Jalukbari Police Station Case No. 501/2025 under Section 74/117(2)/78 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and started investigation of the same.

6. Prior to the lodging of the present FIR, an earlier FIR was lodged by the same informant on 13.12.2025 on the basis of which Jalugbari PS U/D Case No. 102/2025 was registered and in course of investigation, the I.O made a prayer for adding Section 108 of BNS and for amalgamation of both the FIRs, which prayer was allowed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 26.12.2025.

7. It may be stated at this stage that the centerpiece of the prosecution case is a suicide note said to have been written by the deceased and recovered from the place of occurrence, which has been placed before the Court along with the Case Diary.

8. Mr. B.K Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted and laid stress on the point that the vital ingredients of Section 108 BNS, that is abetment of suicide are not present in the instant case, in as much as, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner that the deceased should be driven to commit suicide and in fact, it is the other way around. Admittedly, the petitioner and the victim were in a relationship for long 9 years, where after the same got terminated for whatever reason. But the petitioner never intended that the victim should take her own life. Furthermore, although it is possible that the petitioner and the victim had altercations now and then, the petitioner never instigated the victim to commit suicide and therefore, another vital ingredient of the alleged offence is also missing.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon a few decisions of the Apex Court which are discussed herein below:-

                   1) In Geeta Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1938, it was held as follows:-

                   “18. Even if we were to assume that that physical blows went administered, will that per se constitute abetment to suicide? This Court in a case where the accused told the deceased "go and die" and when thereafter, the deceased committed suicide, absolved the accused of the charge under Section 306 by holding as under:

                   “3. ….Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events..."

                   19. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, held that in order to bring 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 was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.

                   20. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held that the harassment meted out to the victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to his/her life.

                   21. In M. Mohan Vs. State reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626, this Court followed the dictum in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:

                   "41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under:

                   "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." In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."

                   Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-

                   45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."

                   2) In Ayyub & Others Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2025) 3 SCC 334, it was held by the Apex Court at paragraph 20 as follows:-

                   “20. 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 v. State of Gujarat). 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”.

9. Reference has also been made to the decision of the Apex Court in Mahindra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801, wherein the Apex Court held at paragraph 23 as follows:-

                   “23. 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 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.”

10. Mr. P Borthakur, learned Additional PP, with reference to the Case Diary, has submitted that there is sufficient material including the suicide note written by the victim and that it were the continuous acts of harassment on the part of the petitioner that led the victim to take her own life and that had not the petitioner indulged in such acts of harassment, including physical assault upon the victim and her friend, the victim would still have been alive today.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the informant, Mr. D Talukdar and Mr. NNB Choudhury lent support to the arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

12. I have perused the Case Diary including the statement of the friend of the victim who deposed to having been attacked by the petitioner with an iron rod causing injuries to his head but more importantly, the contents of the suicide note that was admittedly recovered from the place of occurrence.

13. It would not be proper to dwell in minute detail on the contents of the suicide note at this stage as the matter is still under investigation. But suffice to say that there exists sufficient material to show that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim had ended, which according to the victim was a mutual decision but it appears that the petitioner was unable or unwilling to accept the reality and had been indulging in certain acts which if true may undoubtedly be termed as harassment both mental and physical in one way or the other. But the law as it stands and as elucidated by the Apex Court in a long line of decisions, including the ones referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, even continuous harassment of the victim by the accused would not suffice to bring the case within the ambit of Section 108/45 BNS, that is abetment of suicide, absent any mens rea on the part of the accused and absent any incitement, direct or indirect. Specific abetment 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. On a perusal of the material on record including the contents of the suicide note, nothing in the form of mens rea prima facie emerges.

14. It may well be true that in the absence of the alleged harassment meted out by the petitioner the deceased would not have taken the extreme step. But there does not prima facie appear to be any material to suggest that it was the intention of the petitioner that the deceased be driven to commit suicide on account of such harassment.

15. Thus situated and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the prayer for bail is allowed.

16. It is directed that the petitioner, namely, Sri Jitu Dutta, in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case shall be released on pre-arrest bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Eleka Magistrate on the following conditions:-

                   1) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I.O. as and when called.

                   2) The petitioner shall not try to influence or intimidate any of the witnesses or other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case.

17. Needless to say, the observations of this Court reflected herein above are only prima facie ones and made solely for the purpose of deciding the instant application for pre-arrest bail and shall have no bearing in any other proceeding including the trial of the case, if one commences.

18. The petition stands allowed accordingly.