Narotma Devi Vs State of Hp

2026:HHC:5557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 2991 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2026

----------------------------------------- Narotma Devi	--------------------------------------------- ...Pe Versus	-- titioner
State of Himachal Pradesh ----------------------------------------- Coram:	…Resp ---------------------------------------------	ondent ---
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sande *Whether approved for report* -----------------------------------------	ep Sharma, Judge. *ing?*¹Yes ---------------------------------------------	-
For the Petitioner :	Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan Sr. A with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advo	dvocate cate
For the Respondent :	Mr.Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Additional Advocate Generals Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Deputy Advocates Generals.	Panwar and Mr. Banstu,
	Mr. Pranav Sharma, Advocate complainant.	, for the
-----------------------------------------	ASI Vijay Sharma, P.S Ba present in person. ---------------------------------------------	rotiwala ---
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

Sequel to order dated 22.12.2025, whereby the petitioner,

¶6

who is teacher by occupation, was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in case FIR No.165 of 2025 dated 05.12.2025 registered at Police Station Barotiwala, Distt. Solan, H.P under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Vijay Sharma, P.S Barotiwala has come present with record. Petitioner is also present along with her counsel. Record perused and retained.

¶7

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General on instructions of investigating officer, present in the Court, states that pursuant to order dated 22.12.2025, petitioner herein has been joining

¶8

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

2026:HHC:5557

¶10

2

¶11

the investigation regularly and she has fully cooperated. He further states that investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such, this court may pass appropriate order and in the event of making the interim order absolute, this Court may direct petitioner to join investigation as and when directed.

¶12

Mr. Pranav Sharma, learned counsel representing complainant, while vehemently opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that minor child of complainant committed suicide after her being subjected to mental torture and harassment by the petitioner. He states that investigation has been not conducted fairly because investigating officer did not record the statements of other students rather gave one questionnaire to the students, which has been answered as the same in a stereo-typed manner. He states that since petitioner is still teaching in the school, there is every likelihood of her committing same crime and tampering with the evidence, as such, prayer made on behalf of petitioner for grant of bail deserves outright rejection.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court finds that on 01.12.2025 deceased namely Rita daughter of Sh. Maan Singh was brought to Shrikant Hospital, Khera Baddi for treatment. Doctors of afore hospital after having medically examined the deceased discharged her and thereafter she was taken to home. After two days of her discharge from afore medical institution, she was taken to PGI Chandigarh but unfortunately,

¶14

2026:HHC:5557

¶15

3

¶16

she passed away on account of having consumed poison. Father of the deceased alleged that on 28.11.2025, petitioner herein, had scolded and humiliated her deceased daughter in the open class for her having not prepared for test. He disclosed to the police that his son, who is also studying in the same class, was also humiliated and scolded.

¶17

In the afore background, FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner, who pursuant to order dated 22.12.2025 is on interim bail. Investigating officer, who is present in the Court, states that after passing of order dated 26.02.2025, he again recorded the statements of 11 students but they have again denied factum of their being scolded or humiliated, if any, by the petitioner. Record of statements brought by Investigating Officer further reveals that students of the class of deceased in unison have stated that petitioner, being teacher, had simply scolded not only the deceased but other students also who had not scored good marks in the test. Students have also stated that petitioner treats every student equal and she has never singled out a student for humiliation or harassment. Besides all of this, this court finds that medical evidence on record, nowhere suggests, injuries if any on the deceased person. Though, post mortem report indicates factum of deceased having consumed poison, but at present, there is no evidence to suggest that deceased consumed poison on account of her being scolded/humiliated by the teacher for not having scored good marks in the test. Admittedly, deceased has not left any suicide note, rather, information with regard to humiliation or scolding came to the notice of the father of deceased through his son, who is also studying in

¶18

2026:HHC:5557

¶19

4

¶20

the same class under same teacher.

¶21

There is another aspect of the matter that deceased had consumed poison on 28.11.2025, but FIR came to be registered on 05.12.2025 after 7 days, of the alleged incident. Once, factum with regard to the deceased having consumed poison on account of her being subjected to mental harassment by the petitioner had come to the knowledge of the parents of the deceased on the same day, there was no reason, if any, for complainant or other family members to delay the lodging of FIR, which admittedly came to be lodged after 7 days of the incident. Though, learned counsel representing complainant vehemently argued that there was no occasion, if any, for petitioner to scold/ humiliate the deceased, as a result of which, deceased consumed poison, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with the aforesaid submission of learned counsel representing complainant.

¶22

It is the case of the prosecution that the brother of the deceased along with other number of students was also scolded, for his/their having not come prepared for test, but he did not choose to take extreme step as was allegedly taken by the deceased. Petitioner, who being teacher, is otherwise responsible to discipline the students, could have never imagined that scolding given by her, would result in such tragedy.

¶23

Bare perusal of Section 108 (B) of BNS invoked against the petitioner itself suggests that to attract the aforesaid provision, intention of accused to instigate and abate the deceased to commit suicide, is necessary. Admittedly, in the case at hand, no evidence till

¶24

2026:HHC:5557

¶25

5

¶26

date has been adduced by the Investigating Officer to prove instigation or abatement, if any, at the instance of petitioner, rather, she was only discharging her official duty and to ensure bright future of the students scolded them, so that next time, they come well prepared for the test. Whether alleged act of scolding by petitioner, who is teacher, can be abetment or instigation is a question to be decided by trial Court in totality of evidence collected by the prosecution but having noticed the statements given by the students as well as other attending circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission made by the complainant that alleged scolding by the petitioner to deceased was to harass and humiliate her. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Thangavel versus The State, Through Inspector of Police and Anr Criminal Appeal No.9099 of 2024 decided on 22.05.2025 categorically held that mere act of scolding does not constitute abetment of suicide and no reasonable person could foresee that scolding, prompted by a student’s complaint, would lead to such an extreme outcome. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

¶27

“5.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an incident occurred where the appellant being a correspondent for the management, being incharge of running a school and hostel, where an incident is said to have been occurred and in relation to which allegation was made by another student against the deceased, based on which the appellant had scolded the deceased due to which the deceased had locked himself in a room and hanged himself with a nylon rope. It was submitted that the response of the appellant being the correspondent was justified and it was just a chiding as a guardian to ensure that the

¶28

2026:HHC:5557

¶29

6

¶30

deceased did not repeat the offence and there was peace and tranquility in the hostel. It was further submitted that there was nothing personal between the appellant and the deceased and only on a complaint by another student, such reprimanding was meted out to the deceased. It was further contended that except for this, no other role has been attributed to the appellant and the appellant could not, even in his wildest dreams, have imagined that such scolding would lead to the deceased taking his life and thus, there was absolutely no criminal intent much less to cause the deceased to take his life.

¶31

Learned Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu fairly submits that there does not appear to be any valid ground for charging the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC.

¶32

Despite valid service of notice, respondent No.2, who is the complainant and father of the deceased student, has not appeared in the present proceedings.

¶33

Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life. Further, as submitted, such scolding was the least, a correspondent was required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures effected. In the considered opinion of this Court, under such admitted factual position, no mens rea can be attributed to the appellant much less, with regard to abatement of suicide committed by the deceased.

¶34

9.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order framing charge against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC in connection with FIR No.01/2024 registered by CBCID stands set aside. The appellant stands discharged in the said case.”

¶35

2026:HHC:5557

¶36

7

¶37

Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of cases have held that one is deem to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved in accordance with law. Since, guilt of the petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this Court sees no reason to keep her judicial custody, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from her. Apprehension expressed by learned counsel representing the complainant that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, she may flee from justice or may again indulge in such activities, can be best met by putting bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

¶38

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

¶39

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

¶40

2026:HHC:5557

¶41

8

¶42

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI , (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

¶43

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

¶44

Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 22.12.2025 passed by this Court is made absolute subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

¶45

(a) She shall make herself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

¶46

(b) She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶47

2026:HHC:5557

¶48

9

¶49

(c) She shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶50

(d) She shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶51

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon her, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶52

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

¶53

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.

¶54

March, 03, 2026. (meera)

¶55

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

Narotma Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narotma Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

Sandhya Devi Vs Abhishek Jain and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

State Vs Bobby Thakur

Bal Krishan Vs State of Hp

State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs Pc Sud