CRM-M-60524- CRM-M-67034- IN THE H ARUN @ ANNU STATE OF HAR SONU @ SACHI STATE OF HAR 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. H Mr. S Ms. G CRM Mr. A Mr. Y -2025 (O&M) -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH NNU Versus HARYANA ACHIN Versus HARYANA he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Kapil Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. Hardik Bedi, Advocate, Mr. Sonu Chaudhary, Advocate and Ms. Geeta Choudhary, Advocate for t CRM-M-60524-2025 Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate, Mr. Yatin Mehta, Advocate, JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-60524-2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent CRM-M-67034-2025 (O&M) …Petitioner …Respondent served 25.03.2026 onounced 27.03.2026 loaded on the 27.03.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA e and te for the petitioner in M) oner dent M) oner dent AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60524- CRM-M-67034- Ms. I CRM Mr. N Mr. P MANISHA BATR 1. This petitions which ha under Section 483 “BNSS”) seeking FIR No.168 date Bharatiya Nyaya S Faridabad. 2. The a complaint submitt on 16.03.2025, his petitioners and co them. They had However, the afo assaulted both of t and committed sui Badkhai Lake. -2025 (O&M) -2025 (O&M) 2 Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate for the petit CRM-M-67034-2025 Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Pardeep Duhan, Advocate for the **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) is common order shall dispose ich have arisen out of same FIR. Th 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sura eking grant of regular bail to the p dated 17.03.2025 registered under yaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS” The aforementioned FIR was registe ubmitted by the complainant-Suresh 25, his brother Rakesh @ Rinku and nd co-accused who were accompanie y had sustained injuries and went he aforementioned followed them th of them. He alleged that his brothe ted suicide by hanging himself with a ke. The victim had also prepared e petitioner in for the complainant ispose of the aforementioned two IR. These petitions have been filed k Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short he petitioners in case arising out of under Sections 108 and 61(2) of BNS”) at Police Station Surajkund, registered on the basis of a written uresh @ Tinku alleging therein that u and himself were assaulted by the panied by 8-9 persons unknown to went to BK Hospital, Faridabad. them at the hospital as well and brother was under immense pressure with a tree in the forest existing near epared a video of the incident by two filed short ut of ) of und, tten that y the n to bad. and ssure near t by AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60524- CRM-M-67034- committing suicid containing the said 3. After Post-mortem of th petitioner Sonu @ Anu was arrested It was revealed tha of the victim and was existing qua s the petitioners alo and the victim. In 4. It is been falsely impli 28.03.2025 respec are no chances of witness has been detaining them in person and patient be correct, there w for commission of this case. Their in -2025 (O&M) -2025 (O&M) 3 suicide in his mobile phone. W he said video, the complainant prayed After registration of FIR, investigatio of the dead body of the Rakesh @ onu @ Sachin was arrested on 28.03.2 rested on 16.04.2025. Co-accused we led that the petitioner Sonu @ Sachin, and the complainant. A dispute am qua some land and on the asking of ers alongwith co-accused had extende im. Investigation now stands complete It is argued by learned counsel for implicated in this case. They are in respectively. They are not required fo ces of conclusion of the trial in the been examined so far. No useful em in custody anymore. The victim patient of depression. Even if the vers here was no reason to commit suicide sion of offence under Section 108 of heir involvement in other cases canno e. While submitting a pendrive rayed for taking action in the matter. stigation proceedings were initiated. esh @ Rinku was conducted. The 8.03.2025 and the petitioner Arun @ were also arrested subsequently. achin, was a friend of Sonu, brother ute amongst the brothers themselves ing of Sonu brother of the deceased, xtended beatings to the complainant mpleted. el for the petitioners that they have are in custody since 16.04.2025 and ired for further investigation. There n the near future as no prosecution seful purpose would be served by ictim himself was a short-tempered e version in the FIR was believed to icide by the victim. The ingredients 08 of BNS are not attracted at all in cannot be considered to be a reason drive ated. The n @ ntly. other elves ased, inant have and here ution d by ered ed to ts all in ason AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60524- CRM-M-67034- for denying benefi on bail. 5. Per co complainant and w are serious allega accused and on be but twice. The sec his treatment at ho by the petitioners his life. The victi had specifically ta had assaulted him record to show th trial. With these deserve to be allow 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The p Rakesh @ Rinku accused had assau prepared a video suicide. A pendr -2025 (O&M) -2025 (O&M) 4 benefit of bail to them. It is argued th Per contra, learned State counsel assi t and while relying upon the reply has allegations against the petitioners wh on behalf of brother of the victim ha he second assault had been committed t at hospital. The victim was so pertu oners and co-accused that he was left e victim had prepared a video before c ally taken the names of the petitione d him and who were responsible for h ow that there would be any undue d these broad submissions, it is argu e allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioners are alleged to have Rinku. As per the allegations, the assaulted the victim twice. The vict video and held the petitioners and c pendrive containing the video recor ued that they deserves to be released el assisted by learned counsel for the ly has vehemently argued that there ers who in connivance with the co- tim had assaulted him not only once mitted when the victim had gone for o perturbed with the acts committed left with no alternative but to end efore committing suicide wherein he titioners as well as the persons who le for his death. There is nothing on ndue delay in the conclusion of the s argued that the petition does not ubmissions made by learned counsel have abetted suicide by the victim s, the petitioners alongwith the co- e victim before ending his life, had and co-accused responsible for his recording of the victim has been ased r the there - once e for itted end in he who g on f the not unsel ictim - had r his been AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60524- CRM-M-67034- placed on record held the petitioner they had assaulted 108 of BNS undou of the said offenc suicide must have acts to facilitate th of incitement by harassment of the absence of any po of occurrence whi be considered to h that to prove the o (which is pari ma the accused to com the culpability of and some material furtherance of th Reference can b Maharashtra and by Hon’ble Supre 306 of IPC (whic contemplated und -2025 (O&M) -2025 (O&M) 5 ecord which has been seen by this Co itioners and other co-accused responsib aulted him. In order to bring a case w undoubtedly, there must be a case of offence, the person who is said to ha t have played an active role by act of itate the commission of suicide. Some nt by the accused in commission of of the deceased or assault upon him any positive action on the part of the e which led to suicide, offence under ed to have been committed. It is also w e the offence of abetment, which is def i materia with Section 107 of IPC) to commit a particular crime must als ity of his action, meaning thereby that aterial on record to establish that he o of that state of mind, the suicide can be made to Aranb Manoran and others : 2020 SCC Online SC Supreme Court that in order to bring which corresponds to Section 108 d under Section 107 of IPC on the this Court. In fact, in the video, he sponsible for his death by saying that case within the provisions of Section ase of suicide and in the commission to have abetted the commission of act of instigation and doing certain Some proof of direct or indirect act ion of suicide. Only allegation of him by the does not suffice in the f the accused proximate to the time nder Section 108 of BNS would not also well settled proposition of law is defined under Section 45 of BNS C), it must be the state of mind of ust also be visible so as to determine by that there must be some mens rea at he or she had a guilty mind and in uicide by the victim was abetted. oranjan Goswami vs. State of e SC 964, wherein it was observed bring out an offence under Section 08 of BNS), specific abetment as n the part of the accused with an he that ction ssion n of rtain t act n of n the time d not f law BNS d of mine rea nd in tted. of rved ction nt as h an AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60524- CRM-M-67034- intention to bring abetment is requir aid or to instigate particular offence rea of direct abetm not prima facie em evidence to be pr offence punishabl petitioner. 8. Given petitioners, this Co be served by deta discussions as ma Accordingly, the released on bail, satisfaction of the concerned. 9. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ -2025 (O&M) -2025 (O&M) 6 bring out the suicide of the person required. It was also observed that t stigate or to abet the deceased to com ffence under Section 306 of IPC. At t t abetment, which is a sine qua non emerge from the record. It is only be produced during trial that any co ishable under Section 108 of BNS Given the nature of the allegatio this Court is of the considered opinion y detaining the petitioners in custod as made above the case is made o , the petitions are allowed and the bail, subject to their furnishing pers of the learned trial Court/Chief Judici It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a erson concerned as a result of that that the intention of the accused to to commit suicide is a must for this At this stage, the element of mens on for attracting the offence, does s only on thorough assessment of the ny conclusion as to commission of BNS can be drawn as against the llegations as levelled against the pinion that no useful purpose would custody anymore. In view of the ade out for allowing the petitions. d the petitioners are ordered to be g personal and surety bonds to the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
that ed to this ens does f the n of t the the ould f the ions. o be the trate l not case AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60524- CRM-M-67034- 10. In the petitioners, it shall application seekin 11. Since if any, are rendere 12. A ph well. 27.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) -2025 (O&M) 7 In the event of there being any FIR it shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. Since the main petitions have been al endered infructuous. A photocopy of this order be placed (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an een allowed, pending application(s), placed in the connected petition as (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No t the g an (s), n as AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.