Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the accused-wife whose husband committed suicide, a Single Bench of Sanjay Vashisth, J., allowed the application, holding that the alleged suicide note did not reveal any serious fight or altercation between the couple which instigated the deceased to commit suicide and it was yet to be ascertained whether the deceased took such step due to the instigation of the accused or due to his weak mental health.
The Court also considered the fact that the accused was a mother of two young children who required her daily care and there was no substantial material that had to be recovered from her possession.
Background
The deceased husband and accused-wife got married in 2019 and had two daughters from the said marriage. According to the complainant, the father of the deceased, the deceased left home on the day of the incident in his car without informing anyone. The next day the complainant received a call informing him that the deceased had been found unconscious in his car after consuming poisonous medicine. The deceased ended up dying due to the poison.
Allegedly, the deceased had sent a suicide message to the complainant about him being upset with the accused due to her wish to stay separately from her parents-in-law. Accordingly, the complainant lodged an FIR under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(‘BNS’), against the accused.
Analysis
After hearing the arguments and perusing the alleged suicide note/ WhatsApp message, the Court stated that prima facie the married life of the accused and the deceased was not running smoothly. From the aforementioned suicide note, it appeared that the deceased was perturbed by the unwarranted desire of the accused to reside separately from her parents-in-law. The court remarked that undoubtedly, there must have been some reasons behind her desire, such as disliking each other and temperamental issues.
The Court stated that the said suicide note did not reveal any serious fight or altercation between the couple in the recent past or any act which instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It was yet to be ascertained whether there was any interaction or conversation preceding the unfortunate death in the present case.
The Court added that undoubtedly, the collection of evidence during the investigation and its subsequent proving before the Trial Court would play a crucial role in determining the facts. It would also be examined whether the deceased, took a drastic step of ending his life due to the regular and constant instigation of the accused or due to the weakness of his mental health. In this regard, the Court relied on A.R. Madhav Rao v. State of Haryana1 wherein the Court dealt with the question of whether the wrong decision was taken by a coward, fool, idiot, or a man of weak mentality or could someone else be blamed for it.
The Court stated that these issues had yet to be examined by the Trial Court after completion of the investigation. At this stage, there appeared to be no substantial material that had to be recovered from the accused, such as a weapon, because there were no such allegations.
The Court further stated that the accused was neither a registered nor a habitual criminal, who may cause any threat to the witnesses or influence them in any manner. Furthermore, her two minor children, aged about four years and one and a half years, would naturally require their mother’s care in their daily lives. Moreover, there was neither any material produced by the parties, nor any record of any litigation initiated by the accused or the deceased before any Court. No complaint or similar document was presented before the Court that could provide a tentative idea about the nature of the relationship between the accused and her deceased husband. The Court added that it was also unclear where the accused was at the time of the incident.
Considering the aforementioned, the Court allowed the application and granted the accused anticipatory bail. The Court further directed the accused to join the investigation, provide her contact details to the Investigating Agency, hand over her passport to the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned, and seek permission from the Court in case she wished to leave the country.
[Sonika Sharma v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 59976 of 2024, decided on 05-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Jasdeep Singh Salooja
For the respondent: Amandeep Singh, DAG
1. CRM M-2068 of 2012 (O&M)
