This court allowed bail to Sunny Pal, who is in judicial custody in connection with an FIR relating to dowry and abetment of suicide. The court held the case fit for bail.
The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted release on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| No | Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| BA1 No. 655 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Sunny Pal, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 265 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 of B.N.S. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S.- Sahaspur, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and is languishing in jail since 08.09.024; the applicant is husband of the deceased; he has never demanded dowry; the daughter of the complainant has always been treated with full respect and has never been treated with any physical or mental cruelty; the applicant has been made an accused on the basis of surmises and conjectures; there is no independent witness of the incident and the deceased committed suicide because she was not happy with the marriage and her marriage was solemnized against her wishes. Learned counsel further submits that there are no specific allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash and Others |
| Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, |
|---|
| reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835. |
| Paragraph 22 and 28 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.” |
| “28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, observed as follows:- |
| “20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45) |
| “45. … It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” |
| 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail. |
| 8. Having considered the submissions, |
| under the facts and circumstances of the case, |
| this Court is of the view that it is a case fit bail and the applicant deserves to be enlar on bail. |
for ged |
|---|---|
| 9. Accordingly, the bail application allowed. |
is |
| 10. Let the applicant be released on bail his executing a personal bond and furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amo to the satisfaction of the court concerned. |
on ing unt, |
| (Alok Mahra 11.06.2025 Ujjwal |
J.) |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted bail in a case involving alleged abetment of suicide under the B.N.S. and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prakash and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and AnotherReferred¶6
Prakash and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835. · Who else cites this
Naresh Kumar v. State of HaryanaReferred¶28
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
Mariano Anto Bruno v. StateReferred¶28
Mariano Anto Bruno v. State
Sunny Pal
State of Uttarakhand
Alok Mahra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
