Can a BreakUp automatically turn a man into an accused under Section 306 IPC / 108 BNS for abetment of suicide? The Delhi High Court says NO; Unless clear instigation and direct intent are shown, criminal law cannot replace emotional disappointment.
NEW DELHI: Justice Manoj Jain of the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a university professor accused of abetting the suicide of a 27-year-old woman, observing that criminal law cannot be stretched merely because a relationship ends badly.
The case arose after a young woman died by suicide at her home, following which allegations were made that the accused had pressured her to convert religion and emotionally distressed her. A case was registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with abetment of suicide.
During the hearing, the Court highlighted absence of direct evidence and recorded:
“Admittedly, there is no dying declaration which may come handy to assess and weigh up as to what was travelling through the mind of the deceased, when she took such a drastic step.”
The Court also noted the long relationship between the parties and observed:
“This Court is mindful of the fact that the parties were in relationship for around eight years and, during such eight years, there is no complaint from the side of the deceased.”
The Court clarified the limited nature of allegations, stating:
“As noted already, the applicant has, merely, been charge-sheeted for abetting suicide and it is not a case of sexual exploitation.”
Examining circumstances, the Court observed:
“Apparently, it seems to be a case of broken relationship and quite possibly, the deceased, having come to know that the applicant has got married to someone else, has chosen to finish herself.”
Justice Manoj Jain explained the legal requirement of abetment by stating:
“Instigation means to provoke or to incite or to encourage a person to do an act and, in order to establish such abetment or instigation, there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the concerned accused.”
In a key observation, the Court held:
“Though, broken relationship and heartbreaks have become common these days, mere breaking-up of relationship may not per se constitute instigation so as to make it to be a case of abetment under Section 108 BNS (corresponding Section 306 IPC).”
It further stated:
“Only a trial would establish whether her such extreme step was on account of provocation or instigation or, merely, on account of her being hyper-sensitive girl or for some other reason.”
Considering completion of investigation and overall facts, the High Court granted bail with conditions restraining the accused from contacting or influencing witnesses, while leaving determination of guilt to trial.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied In This Case |
| Section 108 BNS | Punishment for abetment of suicide | FIR registered against accused alleging he abetted the suicide of the deceased |
| Section 306 IPC (corresponding provision) | Punishment for abetment of suicide under old penal law | Mentioned as equivalent provision to Section 108 BNS for legal interpretation |
| Section 45 BNS | Defines abetment including instigation, conspiracy and aiding | Court examined whether conduct of accused amounted to “instigation” with required mens rea |
| Section 107 IPC (corresponding provision) | Defines abetment under IPC | Referred to explain legal test for instigation and intention |
| Section 437 CrPC | Power of court to grant bail in non-bailable offences | Principles relevant as offence alleged is non-bailable and bail was sought |
| Section 439 CrPC | Special powers of High Court and Sessions Court to grant bail | Bail application was filed before High Court under its jurisdiction |
| Section 173 CrPC | Filing of charge-sheet after investigation | Court noted that investigation was complete and charge-sheet had been filed |
| Section 41 CrPC | Arrest without warrant | Accused was arrested during investigation under general arrest powers |
Case Details
- Case Title: Noor Mohammad vs State NCT of Delhi
- Case Numbers: BAIL APPLN. 4707/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 197/2026
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain
- Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1652
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved On: 19 February 2026
- Judgment Delivered On: 24 February 2026
- FIR Details:
- FIR No.: 522/2025 dated 25 October 2025
- Police Station: Swaroop Nagar
- Counsels:
- For Applicant: Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivam Gupta, Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr. Dhruv Singh, and Mr. Dhruv Tomar, Advocates
- For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP with SI Shankar
Key Takeaways
- Consensual adult relationships ending in breakup should not expose men to criminal liability unless there is clear, legally provable instigation or coercion.
- In absence of suicide note, dying declaration, or direct evidence, accusations alone should not override the presumption of innocence and due process for accused man.
- Retrospective reinterpretation of voluntary relationships as coercive can lead to misuse of penal provisions, highlighting the need for evidence-based prosecution.
- The legal threshold for abetment demands demonstrable mens rea and active provocation; emotional fallout of failed relationships cannot substitute this requirement.
- Bail safeguards personal liberty and prevents unjust pre-trial incarceration, reinforcing the importance of protecting men from criminal consequences based solely on uncorroborated allegations.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.