Gujarat HC Grants Bail in Abetment of Suicide Case, Finds Threat Lacked Prima Facie Bearing on Deceased's Act

Justice Nikhil S. Kariel found no prima facie causal link between the applicant's alleged threat to the deceased's husband and her suicide, granting regular bail after ten months in custody.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad granted regular bail to Javedkhan Soramkhan Mandori, who had been in custody since 3 October 2025 in connection with a case of abetment of suicide registered at Dantiwada Police Station, Banaskantha. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, sitting singly, held on 5 August 2026 that the applicant's role — limited to threatening the husband of the deceased during what was essentially a dispute between two sisters-in-law — did not, prima facie, establish a causal bearing on the deceased's act. The charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had no other antecedents, factors the Court weighed alongside the nature of the alleged conduct.

The FIR and the Charges

The FIR is registered as C.R. No. 11195061250425/2025 with Dantiwada Police Station, Banaskantha. The offences alleged fall under Sections 85, 108, 115(2), 351(3), and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Section 108 of the BNS deals with abetment of suicide.

The application before the Court was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs bail in non-bailable offences after a charge-sheet has been filed. The proceeding was captioned as a successive regular bail application after charge-sheet.

Advocate Mr. D.F. Chaudhari appeared for the applicant. Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni represented the respondent-State.

The Allegation Against the Applicant

According to the charge-sheet, the deceased was a relative of the applicant — specifically, the applicant is the brother of the sister-in-law of the deceased. The prosecution's case is that the deceased and her sister-in-law were involved in a dispute, and during that dispute the applicant threatened the husband of the deceased. The deceased thereafter committed suicide, and the prosecution attributed her act to the threat made by the applicant.

The APP argued that the nature of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant in the charge-sheet were grave enough for the Court to decline bail.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Kariel examined the applicant's role carefully. The Court accepted, for the purpose of the bail application, that the deceased had committed the act on account of a threat meted out by the applicant. However, the Court found that the threat did not, prima facie, carry any bearing on the deceased's decision, particularly because the applicant appeared to have been merely taking the side of his sister in a family quarrel between two sisters-in-law.

The Court also took note of the fact that no overt act beyond the alleged threat to the deceased's husband was attributed to the applicant. This circumscribed role weighed in favour of the applicant when the Court applied its prima facie mind to the charge-sheet material.

Three additional factors shaped the Court's conclusion. First, the applicant had been in custody continuously since 3 October 2025 — approximately ten months by the date of the order. Second, the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning continued custody would serve no immediate investigative purpose. Third, the applicant had no criminal antecedents beyond the present FIR.

The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40, which the Apex Court laid down on the considerations governing the grant of bail. The Court expressly stated that its observations were preliminary in nature and would not influence the trial court at the stage of trial.

Conditions Imposed

Bail was ordered on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, to be executed before the trial court. The applicant is subject to the following conditions:

• He shall not take undue advantage of or misuse his liberty.
• He shall not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution.
• He shall surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court within one week.
• He shall not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned.
• He shall furnish his present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Court at the time of executing the bond, and shall not change residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.
• He shall mark his presence once a month for a period of six months before the concerned police station.

The Court made clear that the authorities shall release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence. If any condition is breached, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action. The trial court is also at liberty to delete, modify, or relax any of the conditions in accordance with law.

Outcome

The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17454 of 2026 was allowed. Rule was made absolute. Direct service was permitted. The bail bond is to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case.