Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010176482025 2025:GAU-AS:11074 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2564/2025 SRI DEBAJIT SARMA PROPRIETOR OF M/S M/S AESTHETIC CREATIONS, RESIDENT OF HOUSEN O. 10, LAKHIMI PATH, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, NABIN NAGAR, P.S. GEETANAGAR, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781021 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MR. P SENGUPTA,MR R K DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MD A RAHMAN(INFORMANT),MR. SURAJIT DAS(INFORMANT),A W AMAN (INFORMANT),MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ(INFORMANT) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 20.08.2025. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.K. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the informant. Page No.# 2/13 This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Sri Debajit Sarma, who has been arrested on 25.07.2025, in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 188/2025, under Sections 108/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is innocent and no way connected with the alleged offence. He submitted that the present accused petitioner is an Architect by profession in his proprietorship concern M/s. Aesthetic Creations, which deals with designs, drawings, buildings and construction estimates etc., for both Government and private projects since year 2014. The accused petitioner being an Architect with the PWD (Building) Department, had participated in the bidding process for the consultancy services for the works of “Borsongaon Mini Stadium, District Bongaigaon, which was floated by the office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), Assam and accordingly, the accused/petitioner was awarded with the contract for consultancy for Rs.32,60,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakh sixty thousand) only and accordingly, he started the contract of consultancy work of the project. However, he modified the foundation design of the Mini Stadium, after review of the site condition and soil test report. Thereafter, the accused petitioner submitted his revised design, documents along with the vetted drawing from the IIT, Guwahati, to the Executive Engineer, PWD and till date the accused petitioner had received an amount of Rs.17,57,085/- (Rupees seventeen lakh fifty seven thousand and eighty five) only as consultancy fees. Thus the petitioner had no occasion to instigate or to pressurize the Page No.# 3/13 deceased before committing suicide or to take such an extreme step. The accused petitioner being an Architect, only provided the consultancy services for the project and his drawing was also accordingly approved and 65% of the work has already been completed. The petitioner also received his dues from the project from time to time and as such, there cannot be any reason to harass the deceased for any undue gain. There are several ongoing projects under the petitioner’s firm and till date he never received any complaint with regard to his work and he is not at all associated with the alleged crime and there cannot be any reason to instigate the deceased to commit suicide or to take such an extreme step. Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that to attract Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, there has to be a positive act on the part of the petitioner, right before commission of suicide. The rigors of Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 requires that there should be an active or direct act on the part of the petitioner, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other alternative and such act, on the part of the petitioner must have been done with the intention of pushing the deceased to a position to commit suicide. Mr. Das, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the present accused petitioner got arrested on 25.07.2025 and he was also under two days police remand. After completion of the police remand, he was produced before the learned Trial Court and since then, he is in judicial custody but the police never prayed for further police remand of the present petitioner. Mr. Das, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is already in custody for a considerable period and hence, further custodial detention of the accused petitioner may not be required for the purpose of investigation. Page No.# 4/13 In that context, Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the same decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as cited by Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No.2411/2025 (Md. Aminul Islam), in the case of Mohit Singhal and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1598 and basically stressed on para 10 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “10. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits”. Citing the above judgment, it is submitted by Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that here in the instant case there is no materials to prove that there was any abetment from the side of the present petitioner nor he played any active part which led the deceased to take such extreme step. Moreover, the accused petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2025 (25 days) and considering his length of detention also, he may be released on bail. The I.O. has also not asked for any further remand of the accused petitioner and thus, further custodial interrogation may not be required in the present case. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of bail. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present Page No.# 5/13 accused petitioner and from the suicide note itself, it is seen that the deceased was under mental stress as there was tremendous pressure exerted on her by the present accused petitioner along with other co-accused. The deceased never received any assistance from her senior officers including the present accused petitioner. Rather, she was under constant mental pressure and the only concerned of the present accused petitioner and other accused persons was to pass the bills, without completion of the work, where there was major variations in the descriptions of the work, in connection with the construction of the Mini Stadium at Bongaigaon. Further he stated that substandard materials were used for construction which otherwise breached the trust of the State. He further submitted that from the note of the I.O. and from the materials from the case diary, it is also seen that the present accused petitioner put tremendous mental pressure on the deceased to pass the inflated bills. He further stated that it is not a case between inter relation between two persons but a public servant committed suicide in an exceptional situations/ circumstances. Thus, it is one of the exceptional case, wherein the victim had to take extreme step only due to mental pressure exhorted on her and the trauma she faced while she was entrusted with the work of construction of the Mini Stadium at Bongaigaon. He further stated that there are sufficient materials, so far collected by the I.O. which reveals that the present accused petitioner also had regular talk with the deceased, even he sent some voice messages to the victim, creating tremendous mental pressure on her. Some of the mobile phones which were seized from the custody of the present accused petitioner, have already been sent for Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, wherefrom the reports are yet to be received. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam relied upon Page No.# 6/13 the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (1) Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, and (2) of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2017) 7 SCC 780. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 22 has held that: “22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and, therefore, clause firstly of Section 107 of the IPC was attracted.”. In the case of Pawan Kumar (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 44 has held that: “44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life-spark.” Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam further Page No.# 7/13 submitted that it is a well settled position of law that the Court while granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, detail examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is need to indicate in such orders reason for prima facie concluding while bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence [(2004) 7 SCC 528, reported in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another]. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam further relied on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118, wherein in para 24 of the said judgment, it has been held as under: “24 In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan, a two judge Bench of this Court was required to assess the correctness of a decision of a High Court enlarging the accused on bail. Justice Santosh Hegde, speaking for the Court, discussed the law on the grant of bail in non-bailable offences and held: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind”. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam that considering the nature of the offence and the materials available in the case diary, the present accused petitioner may not be granted with bail at this stage and his further custodial detention may be required for Page No.# 8/13 the purpose of investigation, which is at the initial stage. Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted in this regard that the FIR was lodged by the younger sister of the deceased who had contact with the deceased on each and every day and the deceased used to report before her as to how she received tremendous pressure from the Department and from the accused persons including the present accused petitioner and the pressure under which she had to discharge her official duty. He further submitted that it is a fact that she could have raised her voice and could have make complaint before the authority against her senior officers or before the police but it is not so easy to take such a stand against the senior officers who are creating immense mental pressure on her. He further submitted that the deceased could not bring all the allegations and materials in her suicide note as she was not a legal expert to put all the ingredients in her suicide note or she was also not under any expectation that after her death, the matter will raise before the Court of law. The deceased was under systematic pressure continuously for about 8/9 months and thus, it cannot be said that there was no close proximity to the date of committing suicide, as there was continuous pressure on her since 8/9 months, which compelled her to take such extreme step to end her life. She was always pressurized to prepare the inflated bills and to pass all the bills submitted by all the accused persons. She was being harassed regularly even after the transfer of some of the senior officers/accused persons over telephone. The learned counsel for the informant further submitted that it is not a case that the deceased was under pressure before 8/9 months, but it is a case wherein she was undergoing tremendous mental pressure and even she had panic attack for continuously 8/9 months, which led her to commit suicide. Page No.# 9/13 Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the informant further submitted that abetment or instigation may be different in every case, which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In every case, there may not be any direct act but if there is any indirect act which led the deceased to commit suicide will also fulfil the ingredients of abetment/instigation to attract Section 108 of the BNS, 2023. He further submitted that this case can be considered as a special case wherein a public servant committed suicide due to continuous pressure exhorted upon her by the persons of her own department, including the architect and the contractor. He further submitted that no leniency should be shown in such nature of cases, otherwise wrong message will go to the society. Further he submitted that all the accused persons are influential persons and hence, the probability of hampering or tampering the evidence as well as the investigation also cannot be denied at this stage, if the present accused petitioner is allowed to go on bail. The deceased was under continuous systemic pressure to do some illegal acts for passing such inflated bills and the only intention of all the accused persons were to pass the bills through the victim by creating immense mental pressure on her. Mr. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the informant accordingly submitted that a person is stated to be instigated another person when he/she actively suggests or stimulates him to do an act by any means or language, which may be direct or indirect and the instigation may be in by words or may be by the conduct. Here, in the instant case, it is seen that the conduct of the present Page No.# 10/13 accused petitioner, who created the mental pressure and agony to the deceased continuously since 8/9 months from the starting of the project, which fulfills the ingredients of Section 45 of the BNS, 2023 i.e. abetment for committing suicide. In that context, Mr. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the informant relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, wherein in para 14.2, it is held as under: " 14.2. In the case of Pawan Kumar (supra), the allegation against the accused was that as he had eloped with the deceased girl, he thought that she was responsible for the criminal proceedings against him by her family and hence, subjected her to abject teasing despite she standing with him and having him acquitted of the offences imputed. On one occasion, while the deceased was staying at her parent's home, he threatened to kidnap her and this led to her pouring kerosene over herself and setting herself ablaze. In her dying declaration, she wrote a letter narrating that the accused was responsible for the step that she had taken. Though the Trial Court had acquitted the accused of all charges, on appeal, the order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court and the accused was convicted under Section 306 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years together with fine. In further appeal, another three-Judge Bench of this Court upheld the order of the High Court with reference to the principles relating to the offence of abetment of suicide. This Court referred to several decisions, including that in the case Ramesh Kumar (supra), and observed, inter alia, as under: 34. The word ‘‘abetment’’ has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context, the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental element……. xxx xxx xxx Page No.# 11/13 36. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or maybe by (implied) conduct. 37. The word "urge forwards" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more quickly in the particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as "abetment". xxx xxx xxx 43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life. 44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit Page No.# 12/13 suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life spark. 45. ………………………… 46. …………………………”. Accordingly, Mr. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the informant raised vehement objection and submitted that the present accused petitioner may not be granted with bail at this stage. After hearing the submission made by learned counsel for the both sides, I have thoroughly perused the case diary and the note of the I.O., including the bail objection filed by him, to know the involvement of the present petitioner in the instant case. From the materials available in the case diary, it is seen that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner. It is seen that apparently he is a consultant Architect and he also received more than Rs. 17 lakhs as consultancy fees out of Rs. 32 lakhs fixed for consultancy but he is fully involved with the alleged offence along with other accused persons. During investigation and from the CDR analysis report, it also reveals that the present petitioner was constantly in touch with the deceased over telephone as well as through WhatsApp. He had WhatsApp chat with the deceased and the deceased also mentioned about the substandard materials used regarding the construction works and she also addressed a letter in her WhatsApp chat with the present accused, addressed to the M/s. Aesthetic Creations and informed regarding discrepancy and anomalies in structural and architectural drawings. It is also reveals that the accused petitioner had submitted the Bill of Quantity Page No.# 13/13 (BOQ), without pile foundation which was later on rejected by the IIT, Guwahati and suggested for pile foundation. But along with the other co-accused, the present accused petitioner pressurized the deceased to prepare a working estimate and created/exerted extreme mental pressure on her in respect of rejection of the said working estimate, the present petitioner along with the other co-accused persons had released the bill amount for an amount of Rs.2,25,84,492/- (Rupees two crore twenty five lakh eighty four thousands four hundred ninety two) only in favour of the contractor. The present accused petitioner also deleted and edited the WhatsApp chats with the deceased, which are to be retrieved and analyzed by the Forensic Experts, which may also enlighten some more angles of the investigation. Considering all these aspects of the case and the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that the period of detention already undergone by the accused person cannot be the sole ground to consider the bail application for the present petitioner. The investigation is still under process and further custodial interrogation may be required to unearth some more facts, involved in this case. In view of this, I do not find it proper to allow the accused petitioner to go on bail at this stage and hence rejected. Send back the case diary forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant