The Delhi High Court recently granted regular bail to a university professor accused of abetting the suicide of his former partner, a 27-year-old school teacher. While granting the relief, the Court observed that the mere breaking-up of a relationship does not inherently amount to “instigation” under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which corresponds to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Manoj Jain, presiding over the single-judge bench, noted that the essential ingredient of mens rea (criminal intent) must be present, and the instigation must be severe enough to leave the deceased with no other option but to take their own life.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an FIR registered on October 25, 2025, at Police Station Swaroop Nagar under Section 108 of the BNS. The investigation began after the police received information on October 24, 2025, that a 27-year-old female teacher had committed suicide by hanging herself at her residence.
The following day, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint against the applicant, Noor Mohammad, a university professor in Delhi. The complainant alleged that the applicant had established a relationship with his daughter under the guise of love and continually pressured her to convert her religion, claiming he would only marry her after the conversion. The father asserted that this coercion caused immense tension, ultimately leading to her suicide. The applicant was subsequently arrested on November 14, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Submissions: Senior Advocate Amit Chadha, representing the applicant, argued that the couple had been in a consensual and cordial relationship for approximately eight years and had planned to marry. However, due to their different religious backgrounds, the parents of the deceased strongly opposed the union and forced her to sever ties. The couple eventually separated in February 2025.
The defense highlighted that the applicant married another woman on October 19, 2025, and the deceased took her life five days later. The counsel argued that the suicide was likely a result of the pressure from the deceased’s parents rather than any instigation by the applicant. It was further emphasized that there was no suicide note or documentary proof of provocation, and that during their eight-year relationship, the deceased had never reported any harassment. Bail was also sought on medical grounds, citing the applicant’s chronic allergic bronchitis and an ACL tear.
Respondent’s Submissions: The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, along with the father of the deceased, vehemently opposed the bail application. They argued that the deceased suffered severe psychological distress due to the applicant’s continuous pressure for religious conversion and his subsequent decision to distance himself from her. The prosecution also expressed apprehensions that the applicant might threaten witnesses or abscond if released.
The Court’s Analysis
After reviewing the facts and the charge-sheet, Justice Manoj Jain made several crucial observations regarding the nature of the relationship and the legal threshold for abetment of suicide.
The Court noted the absence of a dying declaration to ascertain the deceased’s state of mind. Acknowledging the eight-year relationship, the Court pointed out that no complaints had been made by the deceased during that period, and the charge-sheet was solely for abetting suicide, not sexual exploitation.
Examining the diaries recovered from the deceased’s residence, the Court observed that she “merely, wished to transform her desire into a reality.”
Addressing the core legal issue, Justice Jain 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.”
The Court further elaborated on the definition of abetment under Section 45 BNS (corresponding to Section 107 IPC), emphasizing the necessity of clear intent:
“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. Instigation should be of such a nature that leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.”
In a significant observation regarding modern relationships, the Court stated:
“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).”
Furthermore, the Court analyzed statements from the deceased’s friends, Mamta and Sheetal, recorded in the charge-sheet. Both friends revealed that the deceased was upset because the applicant had stopped talking to her since February 2025 and had been seen with another girl. Crucially, the Court noted that these friends “never claimed anything in relation to conversion of religion.” The Court also highlighted the considerable time gap between the cessation of communication in February 2025 and the suicide in October 2025.
Decision
Concluding that the investigational aspects were complete with the filing of the charge-sheet and noting the applicant’s roots in society, the High Court directed that the applicant be released on regular bail.
The Court ordered his release upon furnishing a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate. The bail was granted with the strict condition that the applicant must not directly or indirectly attempt to contact or influence any witness or family member of the deceased.
- Case Title: Noor Mohammad vs. State NCT of Delhi
- Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 4707/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 197/2026
