Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Bail in Teen’s Suicide Case, Highlights Mens Rea in Abetment

Court Rules Successive Acts, Not Single Incident, Establish Intent in Abetment of Suicide Case

NewsArc Bureau

Chandigarh, September 13, 2025 – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected anticipatory bail for an 18-year-old accused of abetting the suicide of a 16-year-old girl, emphasizing that the mens rea—or guilty intent—in such cases must be inferred from a series of actions rather than a single event. The ruling, delivered by Justice Alok Jain, underscores the gravity of the allegations and the profound loss suffered by the victim’s family, noting that “the demise of a child is the biggest punishment for a parent.”

The case stems from a tragic incident where the minor, just shy of 17, took her life, leaving behind a suicide note that allegedly implicated the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the accused had been in direct contact with the deceased, including a phone call the night before her death, during which he reportedly threatened her to end her life. The suicide note further detailed the petitioner’s actions, including a specific claim that he intended to “kill and destroy” her.

Justice Jain, in dismissing the bail plea, highlighted that abetment under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) requires a “positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding” another to commit suicide. The court noted that the petitioner’s repeated interactions with the deceased, as documented in the suicide note and corroborated by phone records, raised serious suspicions of his involvement. “The mens rea has to be seen from the armchair of the proposed accused, not from a single action but from multiple actions one after another, which left the deceased with no other option but to take such an extreme step,” the judge observed.

The court also addressed the suicide note’s significance, stating that while it may not constitute a dying declaration, it carries “some veracity of truth” given its proximity to the victim’s final act. The bench dismissed arguments challenging the note’s authenticity, noting that advanced technology could verify its genuineness and that, at this stage, the court’s focus was on the prima facie evidence rather than a detailed evaluation.

Rejecting the defense’s claim that the investigation primarily involved digital records and thus did not necessitate custody, the court emphasized the severity of the allegations. It further noted the absence of any apparent personal grudges by the complainant against the accused, reducing the likelihood of false implication. “The administration of justice weighs heavily,” Justice Jain stated, prioritizing the need for accountability over the petitioner’s individual rights in this instance.

The ruling has drawn attention to the legal threshold for abetment of suicide, reinforcing that a pattern of behavior, rather than an isolated incident, is critical in establishing criminal intent. The decision also reflects the court’s sensitivity to the emotional toll on the victim’s family, with Justice Jain underscoring the unimaginable pain of parents forced to “carry their own child’s dead body to the graveyard.”

The case, titled XXX v. State of Punjab, was argued by advocates P.S. Ahluwalia and Jaiveer Singh for the petitioner, Amandeep Singh Samra for the state, and Sangram Singh Saron and M.B. Rajwade for the complainant.