If lover commits suicide due to love failure then the lady cannot be held to have abetted the same: Delhi High Court grants pre-arrest bail to 2 in suicide case
Justice Amit Mahajan [16-04-2024]

Read Order: AARUSHI GUPTA AND ORS v. STATE GNCT OF DELHI [DEL HC- BAIL APPLN. 2543/2023 & 3178/2023]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, April 24, 2024: Considering the fact that the threats in the alleged suicide note written by the deceased were not of such an alarming proportion so as to drive a ‘normal person’ to contemplate suicide, the Delhi High Court has granted the relief of pre-arrest bail in a suicide case to a woman, who was in a relationship with the deceased, and a man, who was a common friend.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan was considering the applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The FIR was registered on a complainant made by the father of the deceased alleging that the applicants had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The applicant namely Aarushi Gupta was stated to be in a romantic relationship with the deceased and the applicant Rishab Nayyar was stated to be a common friend.  It was alleged that on 29.04.2023, the deceased had left the house with his friend and he had had called his parents informing them that he would see the applicants. A scuffle took place between the deceased and the applicants, in which the deceased sustained injuries and his car was also damaged by the applicants by throwing bricks. It was also alleged that while the deceased was leaving the alleged place of incident, the applicants instigated him by saying they made physical relations with each other and will get married soon. The applicants had also instigated the deceased by stating that he did not have manhood abilities and he should commit suicide or else they will upload the images of his broken car window along with the photographs of the deceased.

The next day, the complainant spoke to the deceased whereby the deceased reiterated the entire incident and was shivering due to fear and depression. Thereafter, the complainant called the applicants and asked them not to instigate the deceased, to which the applicant–Aarushi Gupta, threatened the complainant of implicating him and the deceased in false cases.

The last conversation between the complainant and the deceased took place in the morning around 9 a.m. and afterwards when the mother of the deceased reached the house at around 11 a.m., she found the door of Karan’s room half open. She went to the room and found his body hanging on the fan with a chunni. Later, the complainant got to know about the relationship of the deceased with Aarushi Gupta when he got the phone of the deceased unlocked. A suicide note was also recovered in which the deceased had written that he was committing suicide because of present applicants.

The Bench opined that prima facie from the WhatsApp chats placed on record it appeared that the deceased was of sensitive nature and constantly threatened the applicant of committing suicide whenever she refused to talk to him.

“If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide”, the Bench said.

Though the deceased had written the name of the applicants in suicide note, but there was nothing mentioned regarding the nature of threats in the alleged suicide note written by deceased of such an alarming proportion so as to drive a ‘normal person’ to contemplate suicide.

Further, placing reliance upon Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat [LQ/SC/2015/1117], the Bench said, “It is trite law that where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation and is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided since, a great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest.”

Thus, noting that the custodial interrogation of the applicants was not required, the Bench directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each with two sureties each of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO on some procedural conditions.