The Bombay High Court has recently granted pre-arrest bail to a woman and her alleged paramour, who were accused of abetting the suicide of her estranged husband.
The court’s decision, issued by Justice RN Laddha on October 17, highlighted the absence of direct instigation or incitement leading to the tragic event.
In its order, the court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that the accused engaged in conduct so “compelling or oppressive” that it left the husband with no alternative but to take his own life. The High Court stated, “It prima facie appears that the applicants did not take any definitive action that directly led to the deceased’s tragic decision to end his life.”
The bench emphasized that the legal definition of abetting suicide requires more than mere speculation or conjecture in the absence of direct inducement or incitement. It asserted, “The abetment to commit suicide requires not merely the presence of circumstantial pressure but a direct and purposeful act of abetment or instigation.”
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the marital discord between the deceased and his wife had begun long before his suicide.
The couple sought anticipatory bail following a complaint filed by the deceased man’s father, who alleged that his estranged daughter-in-law was having an extramarital affair. He claimed to have advised his son to divorce her due to her infidelity, suggesting that the emotional distress stemming from this situation contributed to the husband’s suicide in May 2024.
In their bail application, the woman and her alleged lover maintained that they were wrongfully implicated in the case. They explained that the couple had previously filed for a divorce by mutual consent, acknowledging that their marriage was already strained.
However, the husband later retracted his consent to the divorce and, in May 2023, reportedly threatened to end his life. Following this incident, the woman lodged a non-cognizable complaint against her estranged husband.
The court’s ruling underscores the importance of clear evidence in cases involving abetment of suicide, particularly in situations marked by complex personal relationships and emotional turmoil. The decision not only reflects the judicial system’s commitment to ensuring that individuals are not wrongfully accused but also reinforces the necessity of substantiating claims of instigation with concrete evidence.
In summary, the Bombay High Court’s grant of pre-arrest bail highlights the legal standards required to prove abetment of suicide and serves as a reminder of the intricacies involved in such sensitive cases. The outcome reinforces the need for careful examination of the circumstances surrounding a tragic event like suicide, particularly in the context of marital disputes.
