Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010099582026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1057/2026 KUMARI KHATIWARHA ALIAS KUMARI KHATURA DAUGHTER OF SRI INDRA KHATIWARHA RESIDENT OF- 1ST ASSAM COMMANDO BATTALION HEAD QUARTER, MANDAKATA, P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781121 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DUTTA, MS. P P DAS,MS P SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Porasor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in respect of Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 77/2026 whereby the petitioner Kumari Khatiwarha @ Kumari Khatura has prayed for pre-arrest bail. The deceased was woman constable of Assam Police stationed at Mandakata Camp. She committed suicide by hanging. She left behind a suicide note stating that she was fed up because of the extra mental pressure putting upon her by her senior, namely, the present petitioner. Page No.# 2/3 The brother of the deceased had lodged the FIR alleging that his sister was having a good relationship with a CRPF Constable posted at Rani and he might be able to tell exactly what was happened to the deceased. The witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer stated that the deceased was depressed because she was under depression for a long time. Even, she was taking medicine. Mr. Dutta has relied upon a decision that was rendered in the case of Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 781. Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the said judgment are quoted as under: “5. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat the deceased was a driver who had undergone a bypass surgery and was advised against performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior officer (2010) 8 SCC 628 who had rebuked the deceased harshly and threatened to suspend him when the deceased had failed to comply with his directions. The deceased thereafter committed suicide and left behind a suicide note stating that the accused was solely responsible for his death. In these facts, this Court held that there must be allegations to the effect that the accused had either instigated the deceased in some way to commit suicide or had engaged with some other person in conspiracy to do so or that the accused had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. The prayer for quashing preferred by the accused was accepted by this Court and the proceedings were quashed. 7. In the backdrop of these two lines of cases, we have gone through the material on record. There is no suicide note left behind by the deceased and the only material on record is in the form of assertions made by his wife in her reporting to the police. It is true that if a situation is created deliberately so as to drive a person to commit suicide, there would be room for attracting Section 306 IPC. However, the facts on record in the present case are completely inadequate and insufficient. As a superior officer, if some work was assigned by the applicant to the deceased, merely on that count it cannot be said that there was any guilty mind or criminal intent. The exigencies of work and the situation may call for certain action on part of a superior including stopping of salary of a junior officer for a month. That action simplicitor cannot be considered to be a pointer against such superior officer. The allegations in the FIR are completely inadequate and do not satisfy the requirements under Section 306 IPC. In our view, the facts in the present case stand on a footing better than that in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) and there is absolutely no room for invoking provisions of Section 306 IPC. We are of the firm view that the interest of justice demands that the proceedings initiated against the appellant are required to be quashed.” I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. Only on the basis of suicide note the present petitioner cannot be held liable for abetment of suicide committed by the deceased. She was suffering from depression for a long time and she took medicine for that purpose also. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner Kumari Khatiwarha @ Kumari Khatura is not required to be detained in custody for the allegations brought against her. Therefore, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Kumari Khatiwarha @ Kumari Khatura in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 77/2026, the arresting authority shall release her on bail of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. Page No.# 3/3 The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the Police investigation as and when required. The bail application is disposed of. Case Diary shall be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant