Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Abetment to Suicide Case: Mamta Kaur vs. State of Punjab (2025)

Date of the Judgment: 9th January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 49
Judges: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Can an individual be granted anticipatory bail when accused of abetment to suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Mamta Kaur vs. State of Punjab. The court considered whether the appellant, accused of abetting suicide, should be granted anticipatory bail given that she had cooperated with the investigation and custodial interrogation was no longer required. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Case Background

The case originates from an FIR No. 13, dated 14th February 2023, registered at Police Station-Gharinda, District-Amritsar. The FIR was filed against the appellant, Mamta Kaur, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to abetment of suicide. Mamta Kaur sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Aggrieved by this decision, she approached the Supreme Court of India.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejected the anticipatory bail application of Mamta Kaur on 17th April 2023. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the appellant had joined the investigation as directed by the Court’s order dated 21st October 2024. The Investigating Officer had also confirmed that no further custodial interrogation of the appellant was required.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with abetment of suicide. According to the Indian Penal Code,
“306. 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.”
The provision stipulates that if a person abets the commission of suicide, they can be punished with imprisonment up to ten years and a fine. The legal framework here involves determining whether the actions of the accused constitute abetment as defined under the law, and whether anticipatory bail is appropriate in such cases.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

• Appellant’s Submission:
  • The appellant, Mamta Kaur, argued that she had fully cooperated with the investigation.
  • She emphasized that she had complied with the Supreme Court’s order of 21st October 2024, and joined the investigation whenever called upon.
  • The Investigating Officer had confirmed that her custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.
  • Based on these facts, she contended that her apprehension was not warranted and she should be granted anticipatory bail.
• Respondent’s Submission:
  • The State of Punjab acknowledged that the appellant had joined the investigation as directed by the Supreme Court.
  • They also admitted that the Investigating Officer had stated that no further custodial interrogation of the appellant was required.
  • However, the State did not explicitly oppose the grant of anticipatory bail, but did not concede either.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the implicit issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the appellant, Mamta Kaur, should be granted anticipatory bail given that she had cooperated with the investigation and custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in its reasoning. The Court’s decision was primarily based on the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the cooperation of the appellant with the investigation and the Investigating Officer’s statement that custodial interrogation was not required.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to Mamta Kaur. The court noted that the appellant had joined the investigation as directed and that the Investigating Officer had confirmed that no further custodial interrogation was necessary. The court directed that in the event of the appellant’s arrest, she should be released on bail, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation and that the Investigating Officer had stated that no further custodial interrogation was necessary. This indicates a focus on the practical aspects of the case and the principle that custodial interrogation should not be a routine practice, especially when the accused is cooperating with the investigation. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant had complied with the order of the Supreme Court and joined the investigation.

The court’s reasoning was based on the fact that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not required. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the interpretation of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The court’s decision was based on the practical aspects of the case and the principle that custodial interrogation should not be a routine practice.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Punjab that pursuant to the Order passed by this Court on 21.10.2024, the appellant has joined the investigation as and when called upon to do so and that she has received a letter from the Investigating Officer stating therein that no more custodial interrogation of the appellant is required in the case.”
• “In view of the above, we are inclined to accept the present appeal.”
• “Hence, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, in connection with the case FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023, registered at Police Station-Gharinda, District-Amritsar, she shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed or deem fit by the Trial Court.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom agreed on the decision. The decision was based on the specific facts of the case, and there was no discussion of any new legal principles or doctrines.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Cooperation with the investigation is a significant factor in granting anticipatory bail.
• ✓ Custodial interrogation should not be a routine practice, particularly when the accused is cooperating.
• ✓ The court considered the practical aspects of the case and the fact that the appellant had complied with the court’s order.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, Mamta Kaur, in connection with FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023, registered at Police Station-Gharinda, District-Amritsar, she shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed or deemed fit by the Trial Court. The respondent-State was given the liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail if any of the conditions imposed by the Trial Court were breached by the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused has cooperated with the investigation, and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary by the investigating officer. This case reinforces the principle that custodial interrogation should not be a routine practice and that cooperation with the investigation should be a significant factor in granting bail. This case does not change any previous position of law, but reinforces the existing principles of granting anticipatory bail.

Conclusion

In Mamta Kaur vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, Mamta Kaur, who was accused of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The decision was based on the fact that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation and that the Investigating Officer had confirmed that no further custodial interrogation was required. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that cooperation with the investigation is a significant factor in granting anticipatory bail and that custodial interrogation should not be a routine practice when the accused is cooperating.