Judicial Interpretations

In M. Mohan vs. State (2011), the Supreme Court laid down that mere threats or angry words without a direct and provable connection to the act of suicide do not constitute abetment. The judgment emphasized the need for clear and direct instigation.

Similarly, in Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs. State of Maharashtra (2018), the court stressed that mere professional or disciplinary actions do not amount to abetment unless there is evidence of harassment compelling the individual to commit suicide. This case highlights the need for a continuous and direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide.

Relevant Paragraphs from Key Judgments

Kamlakar Patil vs. State of C.G. (Chhattisgarh High Court) [Para 6]

“In the case of the applicant, there is no clear evidence that he directly provoked or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The allegations of harassment due to financial disputes do not meet the stringent requirements of Section 306 IPC. The applicant was granted bail considering the lack of direct evidence linking him to the abetment of suicide.”

Gulzar Singh vs. State of Punjab (Punjab and Haryana High Court) [Para 6]

“The petitioner had not taken any money from the deceased, and there was no intention or knowledge that the deceased would commit suicide. The mere presence of the petitioner with the main accused did not constitute abetment. Anticipatory bail was granted.”

Gopal Krishan Chawla vs. State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court) [Paras 6-11]

“In this case, the applicability of Section 306 IPC was deemed debatable as the petitioner, being the president of a society, had only demanded the repayment of misappropriated funds. There was no clear instigation or continuous harassment that could be directly linked to the suicide. The petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.”

Veerpal Kaur vs. State of Punjab (Punjab and Haryana High Court) [Para 8]

“Given the absence of clear evidence of direct instigation and the prosecution not yet submitting the final police report, the applicability of Section 306 IPC was a moot point to be decided during trial. Hence, anticipatory bail was granted.”

Navigating the legal complexities of abetment of suicide cases requires expert legal guidance. On the basis of these alongwith other precedents, we were recently able to secure interim anticipatory bail for one of our clients where the dispute was related to a financial transaction.

Understanding the nuances of anticipatory bail in abetment of suicide cases is crucial for a robust defense. The key judgments discussed here provide valuable insights into how courts interpret these cases.