Kerala HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Husband Accused Of Abetting Wife's Suicide, Cites SC Judgment On Different 'Suicidable Patterns'

A single judge bench of Justice C S Dias further held that there is "no prima facie" evidence to prove that the husband had physically or mentally harassed the deceased wife, abetting her suicide. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) the high court in its October 7 order said:

“the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the aspect of abetment has observed that, to attract abetment, there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidable pattern is different from others. Each person has his own idea of self–esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.”

The order was passed in the husband's pre arrest bail plea who is accused of committing offences under IPC Sections 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide), wherein his deceased wife had hung herself with a shawl.

The High Court further said that the petitioner husband and the deceased wife got married in 2010 and they have four children. It observed that the deceased had "not complained of physical or mental harassment prior to her death".

It thereafter said, "Even on the previous day before the incident, the petitioner, the deceased and their younger child went to visit the uncle of the petitioner, who was discharged from hospital. They spent the night together. It seems that it was due to the reason that the petitioner and uncle had consumed alcohol that night, the deceased turned upset and then took the extreme step of taking away her life". 

The Court further held that there was no prima facie evidence to establish that "right from the days of marriage" the petitioner husband had mentally and physically harassed the deceased wife.

It further observed, “Only the previous day of the incident, the deceased turned anxious and took the extreme step. However, that is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided at the time of trial". 

The Counsel for Petitioner submitted that he was innocent and there was no basis for alleging that he committed cruelty and abetment of suicide.

It was argued that the petitioner and the deceased wife led a happy married life and they have four children. It was submitted that there were no major issues in their marriage, except for some minor skirmishes. It was argued that the deceased had taken an impulsive decision to commit suicide and there were no witnesses who allege that the petitioner harassed the deceased or abetted suicide. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he was taking care of their children after the suicide.

The public prosecutor objected to the bail application and stated that the petitioner's alcoholism led to the abetment of his wife's suicide. It was submitted that even on the previous night of the wife's suicide, the petitioner and his uncle got drunk.

Meanwhile the high court said that it must exercise due care and caution while granting or denying pre-arrest bail by considering all the available evidence and materials.

The high court thereafter said, "After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore cited decisions and on prima facie finding that there is no specific material to substantiate that the petitioner had mentally and physically harassed the deceased and has abetted her to commit suicide, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out convincing grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the BNSS. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail, but subject to the condition that he co-operates with the Investigating Officer". 

The high court directed the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from the court's order and in the event he is arrested, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties for the like amount each. 

The high court further clarified that its observations in the order are only for the purpose of considering the pre arrest bail plea and are not to be construed as an expression on the merits of the case which are to be decided by the competent court.

Case Title: Romi K J @Romy v State of Kerala

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates P T Sheejish, A Abdul Rahman, Parvathy S Manoj, Amrita Safal M, Yoosuf Safwan T Ajmal

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Seetha S

Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 6454 OF 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 634

Click here to Read/Download the Order