Patna High Court
Sarita Kumari @ Sarita KumarversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The petitioners are not liable for abatement of suicide and are entitled to anticipatory bail.
Summary
Petitioners Sarita Kumari and Lakshmina Devi sought anticipatory bail in a case where their son allegedly committed suicide after consuming sulphas and left a note blaming his wife and mother‑in‑law. The prosecution charged them under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for abatement of suicide, alleging they instigated the act. The petitioners argued that there was no intention, proximate act, or mens rea on their part and that the suicide note alone could not establish abatement. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing the need for a clear allegation of instigation or contribution to the suicide. Finding the prosecution’s case insufficient to prove the essential ingredients of abatement, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable for abatement of suicide under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the evidence, including a suicide note, establishes the requisite intention or proximate act by the petitioners.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in view of the alleged abetment of suicide.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108, 3(5), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- abatement of suicide
- mens rea
- suicide note
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 108
- Section 3(5)
- Section 438
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9589 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2025 Thana- RIVILGANJ District- Saran
======================================================
1. Sarita Kumari @ Sarita Kumar D/o Rameshwar Singh Resident of Village -
Dharampura, P.S. - Doriganj, District - Saran, Bihar.
2. Lakshmina Devi Wife of Rameshwar Singh Resident of Village -
Dharampura, P.S. - Doriganj, District - Saran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhumay Madhup, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 21-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties through
virtual mode.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Revilganj P.S. Case No.258 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case as per the informant is that
her son, after having dinner, started vomiting and she later
realized that he had consumed Sulphas. It is alleged that she,
along with her daughter, took her son to the Sadar Hospital,
Chapra and where he was referred to Patna for better treatment,
however, he died on the way to Patna. It has further been alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9589 of 2026(4) dt.21-05-2026
2/5
by the informant that a suicide note was left behind by her son,
who has stated that it is on account of his wife and mother-in-
law that he has committed suicide. The informant has also
alleged that there were frequent quarrels between her son and
his wife and their relationship deteriorated and thereafter, her
son was in custody on account of an incident which had
occurred in Jammu, for which he was sentenced to life
imprisonment and thereafter, he had been released on parole and
the present incident occurred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have merely been made an accused in this case on
account of the suicide note. It has been submitted that no
immediate instigation to do a particular thing has been alleged
by the husband of the petitioner no.1 and therefore the
petitioners cannot be charged of abatement. It has next been
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there
has to be a clear mens rea and mere harassment is not sufficient
to hold an accused guilty of the charge of abatement of suicide
as in the present case where the deceased in his note has made a
sweeping statement that the cause of his suicide is the
petitioners. It has further been submitted that there is no
proximate incident which had occurred relating to suicide being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9589 of 2026(4) dt.21-05-2026
3/5
committed by the husband of petitioner no.1 and therefore the
petitioners cannot be saddled with the charge of abatement of
suicide.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further draws
the attention of this Court towards Annexure-P/2 series, which
would go on to show that it was the petitioners who were
constantly showing care and concern for the deceased and they
were making bona fide efforts to secure his parole and after
nearly two decades of incarceration, the deceased was released.
It has, thus, been submitted that in the absence of any
immediate, intentional or coercive act attributable to the
petitioners having a proximate nexus with the alleged suicide,
the essential ingredients of the abatement are absent and
therefore, the petitioners are liable to be granted the liberty of
the anticipatory bail.
6. It is a settled law that to constitute abatement,
intention and involvement of cause to add commission of
suicide are imperative and if there is an absence of any of these
constituents, then the same cannot form the basis for charging
an accused for abatement. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the Madan Mohan Singh vs. State Of Gujarat & Anr.
reported in 2010 (8) SCC 628 is one such authority in which the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9589 of 2026(4) dt.21-05-2026
4/5
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there must be an
allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to
commit the suicide or had in any way added any act or illegal
omission to bring about the suicide.
7. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail and has stated that there is
evidence by way of a suicide note and a video of the deceased
prior to committing suicide, which goes on to show that it was
the petitioners who were responsible for the said suicide and
therefore, they are not liable to be granted anticipatory bail.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and also the settled law on the subject, i.e., abatement for
suicide as observed hereinabove, let the petitioners above
named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four
weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Revilganj P.S. Case
No.258 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9589 of 2026(4) dt.21-05-2026
5/5
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall
be their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically
present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive
dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail
bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by
the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in
similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed
their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take
step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners.
However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the
above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose
of or in the name of verification.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
10. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/ayushkr-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.