Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010137602026 2026:GAU-AS:9805 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1836/2026 SANTOSH MISHRA S/O MADHUSUDAN MISHRA R/O. VILL- BORBARI P.S. RATABARI, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN- 788735 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. K L R YANTHAN,MS. J GHOSH,MS A DAS,MS. R DEVI,MS. U NANDA,P SHARMA,MR. P S BISWAS,MR A IKBAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 17-07-2026 Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting bail to the accused applicant, who was arrested on 07.01.2026, in Page No.# 2/6 connection with Sessions Case No. 43/2026 under Section 108/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, arising out of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 2/2026, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi. 3. The facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by one Pawan Mishra before the Officer-in-Charge of Ratabari Police Station on 06.01.2026 alleging, inter alia, that about four years ago, the sister of the informant was married to the accused applicant, Sri Santosh Mishra. However, soon after the marriage, the accused, Gauriwala Mishra, started subjecting the sister of the informant to mental and physical cruelty. It is alleged that the accused persons demanded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her paternal house and upon expressing her inability to bring the said amount, all the accused persons named in the FIR physically assaulted her. Thereafter, the sister of the informant became pregnant and ultimately gave birth to a baby boy. It is further alleged that on 01.01.2026, at about 6:00 A.M., accused No. 2 in the FIR, informed the mother of the informant over the telephone that the sister of the informant had died. Thereafter, the informant went to the house of the accused persons and noticed certain injuries on her body, following which he lodged the FIR. 4. Upon receipt of the FIR, the police registered the Ratabari P.S. Case No. 2/2026 under the aforementioned sections. 5. In the course of investigation, on 07.01.2026, the police arrested the accused applicant and his sister, namely, Gauriwala Mishra. Thereafter, the police submitted Charge-Sheet No. 20/2026 dated 28.02.2026 against the accused applicant and Gauriwala Mishra under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 6. It is submitted that on 05.03.2026, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Page No.# 3/6 Magistrate, Sribhumi, took cognizance of the charge-sheet and since the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi. 7. On 15.06.2026, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi, framed charges against the accused applicant and his sister, Gauriwala Mishra, under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. On the same day, the sister of the accused applicant, namely, Gauriwala Mishra, was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.06.2026. 8. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the accused applicant, submits that the instant case is not one of abetment of suicide warranting registration of an offence under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023. He submits that the accused applicant was arrested on 07.01.2026 and has been in judicial custody ever since. Learned counsel further submits that no case is made out against the accused applicant under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023. He further submits that although certain witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet, none of them have been examined till date and therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is submitted that since the accused applicant has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration, he should be granted bail at this stage. Learned counsel also submits that the accused applicant is willing to fully cooperate with the trial. 9. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, opposes the prayer for bail by submitting that the incident occurred within seven years of the marriage of the victim with the accused applicant. He submits that there are sufficient prima facie materials indicating the involvement of the accused applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned Additional Public Page No.# 4/6 Prosecutor further submits that since charges have already been framed and the matter is presently at the stage of recording of evidence and none of the independent witnesses have been examined till date, the prayer for bail should not to be granted at this stage. 10. The Trial Court Record in the instant case has been received and the same is perused. 11. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and has also considered the materials available in the Trial Court Record. 12. It is settled law that, in order to make out an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (corresponding to Section 108 of the BNS), specific abetment, as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC (corresponding Section 45 of the BNS), on the part of the accused, coupled with the intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of such abetment, is required. It has further been held that the intention of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide is a sine qua non for attracting the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC (Section 108 of the BNS). In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628. 13. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the harassment meted out to the victim should be of such a nature that it leaves the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to his or her life. 14. Similarly, in Ayyub & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 334, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, in order to Page No.# 5/6 make out an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC on the part of the accused, with the requisite intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned, is required. It has further been held that the intention of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide is essential for attracting Section 306 of the IPC. 15. A plain reading of the aforesaid judgments referred to hereinabove makes it clear that the materials available against an accused person must suggest that it was the intention of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide on account of such harassment or conduct. 16. Upon perusal of the Trial Court Record and the materials available on record, this Court does not, prima facie, find any incriminating material suggesting that the accused applicant had any intention to drive the victim lady to commit suicide, as alleged in the FIR. 17. In such circumstances and upon due consideration of the materials available on record as well as the judicial pronouncements referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the accused applicant is entitled to be considered for grant of bail. 18. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. The accused applicant shall be released from custody forthwith on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sribhumi, subject to the following conditions:- i. That the accused applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required; Page No.# 6/6 ii. That the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court against the accused applicant; iii. That the accused applicant shall not try to hamper or tamper with the trial in any manner whatsoever. 19. It is made clear that the observations of this Court reflected hereinabove are only prima facie ones and made solely for the purpose of deciding the instant application for bail and shall have no bearing in any other proceeding including the trial of the case. 20. In terms of the above observations and directions, the instant bail application stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant