JUDGMENT : MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant against the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No.761/2025, whereby the bail application preferred Section 483 of BNSS ( Section 439 Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 2. The appellant is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.289/2025, registered at P.S. Kotwali Pali, District Pali for the offences under Sections 308 (2), 108, 61(2)(a) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint at Kotwali Police Station, Pali, stating that the complainant is a widow and elderly lady with a son named Kantilal, who has two sons, Abhishek and Mohit. According to the complainant, a woman named Mumtaz, wife of Sher Mohammad, was in contact with Kantilal via social media. She allegedly developed a relationship with him, however later on she pressurized him, and extorted money, which caused Kantilal significant mental distress. On 28 May 2025, the complainant and her son Kantilal went to Jaitaran, while Kantilal’s wife, who is suffering from tuberculosis, also went to her maternal home. After staying for some time, Kantilal told his mother that he was going to Pali and returned home. After reaching Pali, he committed suicide. Neighbours informed the complainant’s brother-in-law Kamlesh and her other son Ravi, who broke open the door and found Kantilal’s body. Around that time, Mumtaz was reportedly calling Kantilal and using abusive language. On the basis of these facts, FIR No. 289/2025 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Pali. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present matter solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, with no direct proof implicating her. 5. It is further contended that Kantilal, the complainant’s son, had harassed her via social media platforms, and any interactions with him were limited to minor transactions within family and social circles. It is submitted that Kantilal also had certain disputes with his wife, who suffers from tuberculosis and was residing at her parental home. 6. 5. It is further contended that Kantilal, the complainant’s son, had harassed her via social media platforms, and any interactions with him were limited to minor transactions within family and social circles. It is submitted that Kantilal also had certain disputes with his wife, who suffers from tuberculosis and was residing at her parental home. 6. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. v. The State of Maharastra and Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 wherein the Hon’ble court has observed that: “14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.” 7. Learned Counsel has further placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 486/2023 dated 26.05.2023 and Deepesh vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21/2024 dated 26.02.2024. 8. It is further contended that the appellant has been in custody since 29.05.2025. passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 486/2023 dated 26.05.2023 and Deepesh vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21/2024 dated 26.02.2024. 8. It is further contended that the appellant has been in custody since 29.05.2025. Investigation is complete, the challan has been filed, and no recovery is pending against her, and the trial may take considerable time to conclude, therefore she may be released on bail. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are specific allegations that she used abusive language against the deceased over phone calls; threatened him to leak his intimate videos and extorted money, record of which has been placed before this court; consequently instigated him to commit suicide, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the appellant, she may not be enlarged on bail. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent. 11. Before going to the factual matrix of the present case, it becomes necessary to examine the statutory scheme under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “ BNS ”). The old Indian Penal Code, 1860 has now been replaced by the , 2023. The former Section 306 IPC corresponds to of the , 2023, and similarly, Section 107 IPC has been substituted by Section 45 of the , 2023. A comparative reading reveals that there is no material deviation in the substantive definitions. Therefore, for the purposes of this order, reference to both the earlier provisions as well as the newly enacted provisions shall be made. of the , 2023 provides as under: “108. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” A plain reading of the above provision demonstrates that, to attract the ingredients of Section 108 BNS , 2023, the prosecution must establish the following: (i) that a person has committed suicide. (ii) that the commission of such suicide was abetted by the accused. Thus, an offence under Section 108 BNS , 2023 is made out only when the act of suicide is preceded by, or is a result of, abetment attributable to the accused. (ii) that the commission of such suicide was abetted by the accused. Thus, an offence under Section 108 BNS , 2023 is made out only when the act of suicide is preceded by, or is a result of, abetment attributable to the accused. The parameter of “abetment” have been outlined in Section 45 of the , 2023, which reads as follows: “45. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who: (1) instigates any person to do that thing; (2) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; (3) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.” A conjoint reading of Section 107 IPC and Section 45 BNS , 2023 makes it evident that a person can be held liable for abetment if: (i) he instigates another person to commit the act; or (ii) he en- ters into a conspiracy for the commission of the act and some overt act or illegal omission pursuant to such conspiracy; or (iii) he intentionally aids, through act or illegal omission, the commis- sion of the act. The explanation given in further clari- fies that wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, which a person is legally bound to disclose, may also amount to instigation. 12. It thus emerges that under each of these categories, the prosecution must demonstrate a proximate and direct nexus be- tween the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide. In other words, some positive act, overt conduct, or intentional aid be said to have directly led the deceased to commit suicide is indispens- able for constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC or its corresponding provision, Section 108 of the BNS , 2023. 13. This court has considered the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. (Supra) and by the Co-ordinate bench of this court in Ram Kumar (Supra) and Deepesh (Supra). 14. 13. This court has considered the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. (Supra) and by the Co-ordinate bench of this court in Ram Kumar (Supra) and Deepesh (Supra). 14. We have further delve into the Judgements passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharastra & Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024 dated 18.08.2025, wherein, while talking about the test to ascertain mens-rea it was held that: 13. It is very pertinent that a reading of the above decisions would only indicate that always a proximate incident or act prior to the suicide was held to be a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a direct causation of the acts of the person accused of abetting the suicide. We think it apt to look at the decisions discussed in Ude Singh (2019) 17 SCC 301 . Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 which was a case in which the husband pursuant to a quarrel asked the wife to go wherever she pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This Court opined that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt that she could do nothing but kill herself. It was held so in paragraph 20: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” [underlining in all the extracts, by us, for emphasis] 14-22 ….. 23. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” [underlining in all the extracts, by us, for emphasis] 14-22 ….. 23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end.The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306. 24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306. 15. This court has further perused the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 15. This court has further perused the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. passed Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2925 dated 07.02.2025, wherein the Hon’ble court held that for abetment of suicide, the alleged harassment has left the victim with no other alternative but to end life: “18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438, the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that:- “…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events….” 19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 ]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 ]. 20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76 .” 16. 20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76 .” 16. Having examined the record in light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra, this Court finds, prima facie, that the essential element of mens rea, namely, a conscious, deliberate, and intentional act on part of the appellant to provoke or facilitate the commission of suicide does not establish that the appellant’s alleged conduct was so coercive, continuous, or compelling as to deprive the deceased of all alternatives except to resort to suicide. Even assuming the allegations to be true for the limited purpose of bail, they do not indicate any conduct that can reasonably be inferred as intended to drive the deceased to end his life. 17. Therefore, after perusing the material available on record in entirety and upon a careful consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 18. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No.761/2025 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Mumtaz D/o Shri Deen Mohammad, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.289/2025, registered at P.S. Kotwali Pali, District Pali, shall be released on bail; provided she furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 19. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.