Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010163432025 2025:GAU-AS:9841 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2403/2025 MR. ANKIT KUMAR S/O- LATE SURESH MODI. R/O- FLAT NO.4A, BIBHA PRABHAT RESIDENCY, SOUTH SARANIA, P.O.- ULUBARI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM-781007. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHUYAN, S. BHUYAN,A. SARMAH,P BHOWMICK,N.R. SHARMA,MR J DAS,MR A TALUKDAR,MR. A KHOUND,MS. N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 30.07.2025 Heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, is preferred by the accused/petitioner, namely, Mr. Ankit Kumar, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 22.06.2025 in connection with Dispur P. S. Case No. 529/2025, registered under Section 108 of BNS. 3. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused/petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The accused/petitioner is a brilliant academic student and, after obtaining a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Silchar in 2014, he opened an institute named ‘Affinity Classes’ in 2017, a proprietorship firm for engineering and medical aspirants. He continued to teach chemistry at his own institute. Subsequently, the deceased started residing with the petitioner in a rented house from 2018 for the purpose of preparing for the medical entrance examination and also began working under the petitioner. In September 2024, following the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner decided to return to his hometown. As a result, he sought investors to convert his proprietorship into a partnership firm. The deceased expressed interest in taking over this arrangement. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the deceased, whereby the deceased was allotted 90% of the shares in exchange for a payment of Rs. 90 lakhs to the petitioner. A copy of the said agreement is annexed with the petition. It is further submitted that, in pursuance of the agreement, the deceased Page No.# 3/5 made a partial payment. However, despite several demands by the petitioner, the deceased failed to pay the remaining amount. It is, therefore, an admitted fact that the petitioner made demands for payment after the execution of the agreement, under which the deceased was given 90% of the shares and the petitioner retained only 10%. It is further submitted that the petitioner visited the deceased’s residence a day prior to the incident solely to retrieve his pet dog, which had been left in the custody of the deceased, and also to remind him about the financial arrangement as per the agreement dated 25.11.2024. The deceased assured him that the payment would be arranged soon. 5. Mr. Bhuyan further submitted that there are no elements, either in the FIR or in the suicide note, that fulfill the ingredients of Section 108 of the BNSS. There is no indication of abetment on the part of the petitioner, nor is there any instigation or act on his part that could be said to have led the deceased to commit suicide so as to attract the ingredients of Section 108 of the BNSS. 6. In support of his submission, he relies on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288, wherein the Court held that mere harassment or blackmail, without direct incitement or proximate acts compelling suicide, is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC. 7. He further submits that, in the present case, there is no mention in either the suicide note or the FIR that the accused/petitioner played an active role by way of instigating or facilitating the act of suicide. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025, dated 17.01.2025]. 8. Referring to the above judgments, Mr. Bhuyan contends that there is no material to satisfy the ingredients of Section 108 of the BNSS, nor is there any evidence to suggest any instigation or active role played by the petitioner in the alleged suicide. Page No.# 4/5 He submits that although the petitioner demanded payment from the deceased as per the agreement, such demand cannot be construed as instigation or abetment to commit suicide. 9. Mr. Bhuyan, submitted that the accused/petitioner has been in custody since 22.06.2025, and therefore, further custodial interrogation is not necessary in the interest of investigation. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, should he be enlarged on bail. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the FIR names the accused/petitioner and alleges that mental harassment inflicted by him and his associates led the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. Furthermore, the suicide note annexed with the petition clearly states that the petitioner had pressured the deceased to pay money and that the deceased was under immense mental stress. Accordingly, she submits that the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence can only be assessed upon perusal of the case diary. She therefore objects to the grant of bail at this stage. 11. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsels for both sides and on perusal of the case record, including the suicide note annexed with the petition, it appears that there are allegations of severe mental harassment inflicted by the petitioner. The agreement between the petitioner and the deceased reveals that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed, under which the deceased was to acquire 90% shareholding in the proprietorship firm upon payment of Rs.90 lakhs. A dispute arose in connection with this financial transaction. 12. Although the suicide note mentions mental harassment, at this stage there is no material to suggest that the petitioner instigated or facilitated the commission of suicide. Considering the above and without delving into the merits of the case, and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for 39 days, I am of the opinion that the Investigating Officer got sufficient opportunity to interrogate Page No.# 5/5 the petitioner keeping him in custody. Therefore, further custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary for the purpose of investigation. 13. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, the accused/petitioner, namely, Mr. Ankit Kumar , be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), without prior permission. 14. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant