'Law abhors evasion': Delhi court denies bail to youth accused of abetting girlfriend’s suicide

A Delhi court refused anticipatory bail to 23-year-old Savan Kumar, accused of abetting the suicide of a young woman, Rakhi, who allegedly jumped to her death from the fifth floor of a building in Sangam Vihar in Delhi on October 25.

The incident, which came barely weeks after the two reportedly met and began a relationship through social media, has once again brought to the fore troubling questions about the volatile nature of online relationships where digital intimacy often blurs boundaries of trust, control, and emotional coercion.

In a detailed order, Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi observed that Savan’s conduct was not forthcoming and his cooperation was essential for a fair probe. “The law abhors screening oneself from the due process of law,” the court remarked, noting that crucial evidence such as the accused’s mobile phone and call detail records could help establish his presence at the time of the incident.

Savan had approached the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking protection from arrest in connection with the FIR registered at Sangam Vihar police station under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with abetment of suicide.

According to his bail plea, Savan and Rakhi first connected on social media in September 2025 and soon entered into a relationship. He claimed that Rakhi often threatened self-harm if he failed to meet her demands and that on the day of the incident, she sent him a text saying she would jump off the roof. Savan stated that he rushed to the spot, found her lying injured, and took her to Batra Hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries.

The prosecution, however, painted a different picture. The investigating officer (IO) opposed the bail plea, calling Savan’s custodial interrogation a must. He told the court that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that the accused had allegedly assaulted Rakhi a day before her death. The IO further alleged that Savan misled doctors by falsely identifying Rakhi as his sister at the hospital and later resisted arrest in Rajasthan, where a mob rescued him from police custody.

The complainant’s counsel went a step further, arguing that this was not a mere case of abetment of suicide but murder. “The applicant pushed the victim from the fifth floor of his house after harassing and abusing her,” the lawyer contended.

After hearing both sides, the court noted inconsistencies in Savan’s version, including his claim that he was at Tigri, two to three km away, when Rakhi jumped, despite reaching the hospital almost immediately after the incident. The judge found his explanations unconvincing and stressed that his cooperation was critical to unearth the truth.

Concluding that “his custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of evidence and verification of facts,” the court dismissed Savan’s anticipatory bail plea.

In dismissing the bail plea, the court signalled a cautious approach toward digital-era crimes where relationships, communication trails, and intent often converge in ambiguous ways. The case highlights how fragile emotional bonds formed through social media can spiral into psychological dependency and manipulation, raising complex questions for both law enforcement and the judiciary about intent, consent, and culpability in the virtual age.

The case also underscores how virtual connections, built on fragile emotional foundations, can swiftly spiral into real-life tragedy when manipulation and mental vulnerability intersect without accountability or support systems, exposing the darker underside of modern digital companionship and its psychological toll on young minds.

India