Noor Mohammad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026

The deceased, a 27-year-old woman and school teacher, allegedly died by suicide by hanging at her residence on 24 October 2025.

An FIR was registered the following day based on a complaint lodged by her father.

The complainant alleged that the accused, a university professor, had abetted her suicide.

It was alleged that the accused had pressured the deceased to convert her religion as a precondition for marriage, causing severe mental distress.

The deceased and the accused had allegedly been in a relationship for approximately eight years.

During the subsistence of their relationship, no prior complaint was filed by the deceased.

The accused was arrested on 14 November 2025.

The prosecution charge-sheeted the accused for abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS.

The accused applied for regular bail before the High Court.

The Court observed that broken relationships and heartbreaks have become common, and mere breakup does not automatically amount to instigation.

It held that mere termination of a relationship cannot per se constitute abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS.

The Court emphasized that instigation means to provoke, incite, or actively encourage a person to commit an act.

To establish abetment, there must be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused.

Instigation must be of such intensity that it leaves the deceased with no option except to commit suicide.

The Court noted the absence of any dying declaration, which could have clarified the mental state of the deceased at the time of suicide.

The diaries recovered from the deceased appeared to contain her personal emotional expressions rather than evidence of coercion.

The accused had been charge-sheeted only for abetment of suicide, and it was not a case involving sexual exploitation.

The Court observed that the deceased allegedly took the drastic step after learning that the accused had married someone else.

Considering that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the accused had strong roots in society, the Court granted regular bail.

Bail was granted subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety bond of ₹25,000 each.

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 108 BNS, aligning it with the jurisprudence under Section 306 IPC.

The Court reaffirmed that emotional distress arising from a breakup, by itself, does not satisfy the legal threshold of instigation.

The decision emphasizes the necessity of proving intentional provocation rather than mere relationship disputes.

The requirement that instigation must leave the deceased with “no option” reinforces the principle of proximate cause in abetment cases.

The Court balanced the seriousness of the allegation with bail jurisprudence principles, particularly presumption of innocence and completion of investigation.

The ruling prevents criminal law from being used to penalize ordinary relationship breakdowns unless accompanied by clear evidence of criminal intent.