2026:HHC:34100 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM Nos. 1358, 1359 and 1360 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.8.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No.1358 of 2026 Kasim Sheikh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1359 of 2026 Karam Deen ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 1360 of 2026 Raj Bibi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna and Ms. Samina Sheikh, Advocates, for the complainant. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) 2026:HHC:34100 2 Bail petitioners namely Kasim Sheikh, Karam Deen and Raj Bibi have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 92/2026 dated 14.07.2026 registered at Police Station BSL Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 108, 85 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Kashmir Singh, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Careful perusal of the record/status report reveals that on 14.07.2026, police after having received information from Medical College, Ner Chowk regarding a case of hanging from Jai Devi, reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant Ashid, who claimed himself to be brother of the deceased Ashima, alleging therein that marriage inter- se his deceased sister and Kasim Sheikh was solemnized in the year 2019, but his deceased sister was under mental stress on account of constant harassment meted out to her for her inability to bear a child. He alleged that his sister was working at Senior Secondary School, Jai Devi and for the last 5-6 months, she was residing there in a private accommodation. He disclosed that though his brother-in-law Kasim Sheikh was working at Mandi, for the last few months, but he also used to travel to Jai Devi every evening. Complainant alleged that on 14.07.2026 at 6:30 PM, while he was 2026:HHC:34100 3 at his shop, a telephonic call was received from his mother, informing that Ashima was not opening the door. As soon as he got ready to go to his sister's house, he received another call from his brother stating that he was informed by mother-in-law of Ashima that she had committed suicide. He alleged that at 7:15 PM, when he reached Jai Devi, he found his deceased sister Ashima, lying on the bed with a blanket laid over her body. He alleged that body of his deceased sister was warm, as such, he immediately took her to the hospital with the help of local people, where after 30 minutes, she was declared dead. He alleged that his sister was constantly harassed and mentally tortured by her in-laws and her husband Kasim Sheikh for not bearing a child. He also alleged that sister-in-law of deceased, namely Kazeema Sheikh, who was married, also used to taunt the deceased for not bearing a child. In the aforesaid background, FIR as detailed hereinabove came to be lodged against the bail petitioners. 4. One of the accused, namely Kazeema Sheikh, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2026 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1333 of 2026. 5. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners coupled with the fact that they are in judicial custody, prayer has been made by them for grant of bail. 6. While fairly admitting the factum with regard to completion of investigation, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states 2026:HHC:34100 4 that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioners, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve any leniency. While making this Court peruse status report/record, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioners, being husband and in-laws of deceased Ashima, had been constantly harassing her for not bearing child. While making available copy of suicide note left by deceased, Mr. Kahol, states that bare perusal of the same clearly reveals that deceased Ashima committed suicide on account of being constantly tortured by the bail petitioners, as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the investigating agency while registering case under Section 108 of BNS against the petitioners. He states that in the event of petitioners being enlarged on bail, there may be unrest in the area, which can further create a law and order situation. 7. Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, learned counsel representing the complainant, while adopting submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General, further states that conduct of the bail petitioners, who were very much present at the spot at the time when deceased Ashima committed suicide, clearly reveals that they themselves did not want to save the deceased. While referring to the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., learned counsel representing the complainant 2026:HHC:34100 5 attempted to argue that had husband of deceased as well as bail petitioners taken deceased to hospital at the first instance, probably she could have been saved. He submits that as per status report, deceased was declared dead after 30 minutes of having reached the hospital, meaning thereby, when deceased was taken down from ceiling fan, she was alive, but yet no effort was made by her in-laws to take her to the hospital with the help of landowners who were available, which act of them itself suggests that they were not very much concerned with the life of deceased Ashima. He further submits that very act of taunting, teasing and causing mental trauma to deceased for her inability to bear a child itself amounts to abetment and instigation of sucide, which stands duly proved in the case at hand. He states that since there is ample evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to the effect that deceased committed suicide after being harassed by the bail petitioners, prayer made for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. He further states that from day one, attempt has been made by the accused to destroy the evidence. He states that as per status report, father-in-law of deceased, namely Karam Deen, admitted the factum of his having removed suicide note left behind by deceased and kept it in his car, which was subsequently recovered from his car during investigation. He further states that recently, husband of Kazeema Sheikh, had extended threats to the family of the deceased, as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioners on bail, who in that 2026:HHC:34100 6 event, may not only flee from justice, but may cause harm to the family of the deceased. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that marriage inter-se deceased Ashima and Kasim Sheikh was solemnized in the year 2019. Immediately, after her marriage, deceased Ashima along with her husband started staying at Sundernagar at her parental house. Thereafter, on account of her being posted at Jai Devi, coupled with the fact that in past she had suffered miscarriages, she started residing at Jai Devi along with her husband. Though husband of deceased was working at Mandi, he used to come to Jai Devi every evening. Investigation reveals that deceased had suffered miscarriages on three occasions and on account of same, there was some discord in the family. On the date of alleged incident, none of the family members was present at the residence, rather in-laws of deceased, i.e., Karam Deen and Raj Bibi, who had come to Jai Devi on the same day from Sarkaghat, had gone to Dhanak to offer condolences to a bereaved family. Accused, namely Kazeema Sheikh, who already stands enlarged on bail, though was residing at Hamirpur along with her husband Dr. Sadiq, also came to the hospital in the evening after having heard news of suicide committed by deceased Ashima. In-laws of the deceased, after having returned from Dhanak, noticed that Ashima had hanged herself. Though they attempted to open the door, but since it was locked from inside, they 2026:HHC:34100 7 called for help of landowners. Though in-laws of deceased could enter the house through balcony, they found that deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. Allegedly, father-in-law of deceased, Karam Deen, found a suicide note on the bed, which was kept by him in his car, which he subsequently handed over to investigating agency during the course of investigation. 9. Careful perusal of the suicide note left behind by the deceased Ashima reveals that she was constantly taunted for not bearing a child. It is also mentioned in the suicide note that her husband used to scold her for not taking care of his parents. If suicide note is perused in its entirety, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, learned counsel representing petitioner(s), that there is no specific allegation of constant harassment and mental torture, if any, meted out to the deceased at the hands of the present bail petitioners. Rather, her entire grouse was that she was repeatedly taunted by her husband and in-laws for her inability to bear a child. Careful reading of suicide note further reveals that entire grouse of deceased was against her husband, who allegedly used to pick up fights with her on the pretext that she did not care about his parents. While specifically mentioning about three miscarriages, the deceased has mentioned in the suicide note that her husband never gave her importance, rather he always fought with her for his parents. There is no specific allegation of cruelty or maltreatment. 2026:HHC:34100 8 10. Though learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel representing complainant, while referring to the suicide note, attempted to argue that taunts for not bearing a child was the reason for the deceased to commit suicide, but having read suicide note in its entirety, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing respondent-State and complainant. Needless to say, to establish abetment or instigation to commit suicide as defined under Section 108 of BNS, some overt act should have been done by the accused. Merely asking somebody to take care of health, especially with regard to food habits, so that miscarriage is prevented in future, may not be sufficient to conclude that deceased was being harassed and tortured for not bearing a child. Moreover, this Court finds that in-laws of deceased Ashima, namely Karam Deen and Raj Bibi had been living at Sarkaghat and they had come to Jai Devi on the same day in the evening. Alleged act of removing suicide note by bail petitioner Karam Deen may not be sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the accused named in FIR under Section 108 of BNS, rather same can at best be a case of destruction of evidence. 11. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Yadwinder Singh @Sunny v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2332, relevant paras wherof read as under: 2026:HHC:34100 9 “16. This Court in the case of “Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091 has succinctly explained the Principles of law governing abetment. We quote the relevant observations as under:— “13. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:— “306. 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.” 14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:— “107. Abetment of a thing.— A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First. — Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.— Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.— A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to 2026:HHC:34100 10 facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:— “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465, it was observed as under:— “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” (emphasis supplied) 2026:HHC:34100 11 17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. The act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide.” 12. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of cases has repeatedly held that a person is deemed to be innocent till the time his or her guilt is proven on record in accordance with law. Since in the case at hand, guilt of the bail petitioners is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, there appears to be no justification to let them incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial. Continuous incarceration of the petitioners without their having been held guilty would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but is a direct violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel representing complainant that in the event of petitioners being enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice and cause harm to the family of deceased can be best met by putting them to stringent conditions. 13. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is 2026:HHC:34100 12 probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 16. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in 2026:HHC:34100 13 the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 17. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioners have carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, Mandi, with following conditions: a. They shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; 2026:HHC:34100 14 b. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 19. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 20. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the main case and shall remain confined to the disposal of these applications alone. The bail petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 21. The petitioners are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. August 12, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge