[2025:RJ-JP:40452] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8767/2025 Kailash Chand Maheshwari S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Maheshwari, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Bilwa, Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur (South), Presently Residing At House No. B-223, Kirti Nagar, Gopalpura Mode, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur (East) (Presently Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP with Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Ms. Harshita Sharma for Dr. Mahesh Sharma HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 06/10/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S-2023 on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused- applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 163/2025 registered at Police Station Transport Nagar District Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Sections 79, 74 and 308(2) of BNS 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that the accused-applicant is a senior citizen, and there are no criminal antecedents registered against him. It is submitted that transaction in question pertains to a monetary transaction and [2025:RJ-JP:40452] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-8767/2025] instant matter is having a civil flavor. It is further submitted that the alleged incidence has occurred on 30.06.2025 whereas the conversations inter-se the accused-applicant and the deceased has occurred on 27.06.2025 and 28.06.2025. 3. Furthermore, it is submitted that on 27.06.2025, merely for recovery/ realisation of the loan amount or financial transaction, the parties had conversation on 28.06.2025. Moreover, various endeavors were made for recovering the money, however, the deceased was not traceable, thereafter, the accused-applicant had attempted conversation via teleconference for recovery of the money. 4. Additionally, it is submitted that the alleged incident had occurred after a lapse of two days. Further, the deceased had also availed the remedy by filing a complaint before the concerned police station on 29.06.2025 and police authorities have taken necessary actions qua the same, however, the deceased being frustrated of the police actions, has committed self-immolation. 5. Furthermore, it is submitted that the police authorities have rescued the deceased and recorded parcha-bayaan. Additionally, it is submitted that if instigation had being on the part of accused- applicant, the deceased would have committed suicide on 28.06.2025 and would not have availed the remedy. It is further submitted that the alleged incident has occurred on account of being frustrated with the actions of the police authorities and the parcha-bayaan which is recorded by the police authorities has [2025:RJ-JP:40452] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-8767/2025] reflected that the accused had played no role in the alleged incident. 6. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in S.S. Chheena Versus Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another: Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2010 and Mahendra Awase Versus State of Madhya Pradesh: Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025, and has submitted that ingredients necessary to make out the case qua instigation/abatement are not made out. Moreover, there was no instigation on the part of the accused-applicant rather the act of the police authorities has aggravated the alleged incident. The relevant extract of Mahendra Awase (supra) is reproduced herein below:- “21. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide.” 7. Lastly, it is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 108 of BNSS, ingredients are not proved to make out the case of abatement. The relevant Section is reproduced herein below:- “108. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant Ms. Harshita Sharma has submitted that on 28.06.2025, the accused-applicant [2025:RJ-JP:40452] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-8767/2025] had made forced entry into the house of the deceased and abused the family members, more particularly the daughter of the deceased aged approximately 24 years. In support of the said contention, attention is drawn upon the statements tendered by the daughter of the deceased during the course of investigation, wherein it is categorically stated that deceased and family members of the deceased were threatened and physical altercations had also occurred inter-se the respective persons. 9. Subsequently, it is submitted that foundation of the instigation was the threatening i.e., forced entry into the house and repeated demands via conversations, therefore, the same being a continuous events is a part of the instigation. It is further submitted that being frustrated qua the same, suicide was committed by the deceased. 10. Furthermore, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana: Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2010. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced herein below:- “16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of [2025:RJ-JP:40452] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-8767/2025] conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four- corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self- respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 11. Heard and considered. 12. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the material available on record and taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court has made the following observations:- 12.1 That allegations are leveled against the accused- applicant qua instigation for suicide. 12.2 That financial transactions were carried out inter-se the accused-applicant and the deceased. 12.3 That the deceased had filed a police complaint on 29.06.2025 due to conduct of the accused-applicant i.e., continuous threats, forced entry into the house and misbehavior [2025:RJ-JP:40452] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-8767/2025] committed towards the family members, more particularly towards his daughters and mother in his absence on 28.06.2025, which has inflicted mental and physical anguish upon them and the deceased. The persistent harassment and torment shattered their peace and dignity, leaving the deceased in a state of unbearable distress, prima facie resulting in inducement to the deceased to commit alleged suicide on 30.06.2025. The same is also a part of the record and is also reflected in the parcha-bayaan. 12.4 That term “instigation” as defined in the dictionary and as per the precedents established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ude Singh (Supra) and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh; (2001) 9 SCC 618 means “the act of something to begin or happen/to provoke/urge”. 12.5 That the instant matter is at the stage of trial. 13. In view of the aforementioned, it is deduced that at this stage, no substantial grounds prima facie appear to consider the case for bail as in the matter at hand several disputed questions of facts are present, and the same are ought to be addressed and adjudicated during the trial. Therefore, without commenting anything on merits/demerits, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. 14. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed, at this stage. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/56