Sister-In-Law's Advice To Take Care To Prevent Miscarriage Isn't Harassment For Not Bearing Child, Doesn't Amount To Abetment: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that merely asking a woman to take care of her health, particularly her food habits to prevent a future miscarriage, may not be sufficient to conclude that she was being harassed or tortured for not bearing a child. The Court made the observation while granting bail to a woman accused of abetting the suicide of her sister-in-law, holding that...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that merely asking a woman to take care of her health, particularly her food habits to prevent a future miscarriage, may not be sufficient to conclude that she was being harassed or tortured for not bearing a child.
The Court made the observation while granting bail to a woman accused of abetting the suicide of her sister-in-law, holding that to establish abetment or instigation to commit suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), some overt act on the part of the accused is required.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Merely asking somebody to take care of her health, especially with regard to food habits so that miscarriage is prevented in future may not be sufficient to conclude that deceased was being harassed and tortured for her not bearing a child.”
Background:
The case arose after Aashima, who was married to Kasim Sheikh in 2019, was found hanging at her residence in Jay Devi on July 14, 2026. The prosecution case was that the deceased had been continuously harassed and mentally tortured by her in-laws and husband for not having a child.
The complainant, who was the deceased's brother, also alleged that Kazeema Sheikh, the deceased's sister-in-law, used to taunt Aashima for not having a child. Following the allegations, Kazeema and the other family members were arrested.
The State opposed the bail plea, contending that there was overwhelming evidence against the petitioner and that she had been named in the suicide note. It was also argued that her release could result in unrest and create a law-and-order situation.
The Court, after examining the suicide note in its entirety, found that there was no specific allegation of constant harassment or mental tension against Kazeema Sheikh. The deceased's grievances were primarily directed towards her husband, who allegedly fought with her over her failure to take care of his parents.
The Court rejected the State's contention that the petitioner had harassed or taunted the deceased for not bearing a child. It held that merely asking the deceased to take care of her health and food habits, particularly to prevent a future miscarriage, would not by itself amount to harassment or torture for not bearing a child.
The Court noted that Kazeema had been residing at Hamirpur with her husband after her marriage. There was also no specific mention of her name in the suicide note. In these circumstances, and particularly since nothing remained to be recovered from her, the Court found no justification for keeping her in custody indefinitely during the trial.
The Court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proved in accordance with law. It held that indefinite incarceration during trial, before guilt is established, would violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Considering the material on record, the absence of a specific allegation of cruelty against the petitioner, her separate residence, the absence of any further recovery, and the settled principles governing bail, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of bail.
Case Name: Kazeema Sheikh v/s State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr.MP (M) No. 1333 of 2026
Date of Decision: 27.07.2026