Mother finds son's final video naming woman responsible for his death; HC denies her bail

His mother found him hanging from a ceiling fan. When she checked his mobile phone, she found a video he had recorded just before his death, allegedly holding a woman responsible for his death after she demanded Rs 2 lakh and threatened to implicate him in a false rape case. Holding that the prosecution allegations, coupled with the suicide video, prima facie made out a case of abetment to suicide, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused the woman's anticipatory bail.

“As per the prosecution case, the deceased had been driven to commit suicide as the petitioner-woman was demanding an amount of Rs 2 lakh from him, failing which she would implicate him in a false rape case. These allegations would, prima facie, amount to abetment and the video itself has been made on March 11, 2026, immediately before the deceased committed suicide,” Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi asserted.

The Bench added that the offence prima facie stood established. Besides this, the investigation was to be taken to its logical conclusion, for which the petitioner-woman’s custodial interrogation was “certainly required”.

The case has its genesis in an FIR registered on March 11 for abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Kapurthala City police station. The victim’s mother, among other things, had alleged that her son – a plumber educated up to Class 8 – had been in a relationship with the petitioner for about one-and-a-half years.

She alleged that the petitioner used to blackmail him and take money. About 15 days before the incident, she allegedly demanded Rs 2 lakh. The victim subsequently came to know that she was a married woman, whose divorce had not yet taken place.

On the evening of March 10, the victim allegedly told his mother that the petitioner was threatening to register a rape case against him if he did not pay Rs 2 lakh. His mother told him they would speak to the petitioner the following morning in a “panchayati manner”. During the night, however, he hung himself from a ceiling fan using a bedsheet.

The complainant alleged that she checked her son's mobile phone after the incident and found a video recorded by him, in which he stated that he was committing suicide after being troubled by the petitioner and held her responsible for his death. She also alleged that the petitioner's relatives had threatened him over the phone.

Seeking anticipatory bail, the petitioner's counsel argued that she had been falsely implicated. It was contended that there had to be proof of a direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement in close proximity to the commission of suicide to attract the offence of abetment of suicide.

Counsel further relied on undertakings dated October 13 and October 27, 2025, to argue that it was the now-deceased, who had been asked not to contact, harass or call the petitioner, and not the other way round. It was also submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to join the investigation. As such, she deserved the concession of anticipatory bail.

Opposing the plea, the State referred to the status report and submitted that the petitioner's conduct amounted to active instigation and abetment, making custodial interrogation necessary to carry the investigation to its logical conclusion.

Turning down the plea, Justice Bedi asserted the court did not find merit in the present petition and the same stood dismissed.

Before parting with the case, the Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the anticipatory bail plea and would not influence the trial court while adjudicating the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it.