ORDER (ORAL) Vishnu Sahai, J. - This is an application for bail in case under Sections 384.387.506 (2) and 306 I.P.C. In short the prosecution case is as under. 2. The deceased Renu Khandchandani, a unmarried teacher was on friendly terms with the applicant form 3/4 years-prior to the incident. On. 7-2-2000 at about 12.30 a.m. she made a telephonic call to her brother, the informant Vipul, Parekh, that the applicant had taken her signatures on some blank papers, her photograph had started extorting money from her and out of fear she had paid Rs. 70.000/ - to him. She also told Vipul on telephone that the applicant had threatened her with dire consequences and that he would kill the children of the informant. The informant consoled Renu. Same day at 2 p.m. the deceased again contacted him and told him that she was very much scared and apprehended danger to her life. TIle informant told her not to worry. On 8-2-2000 at 1 p.m. the deceased made a phone call to the informant and told the latter that the applicant was blackmailing her to pay more money. The informant asked her to take precautions. On 8-2-2000 at 10 p.m. the informant reached her house and found her in a petrified condition and after listening to her problems went to the house of one Lalchandani with whom he had family relations and also told him about the deceased had told him. On 9-2-2000, at 8.15 p.m. the deceased as a consequence of the threats given by the applicant jumped form her house and committed suicide. 2. It is significant to mention that the facts enumerated above have been set forth in the FIR. 3.I have heard Mr. Keshwani for the applicant, Ms Kejriwal APP for the State and considered the over all circumstances. Bearing in mind the fact that the deceased made statements to the informant on telephone and told him personally circumstances leading to her, death, which prima facie would be admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and the cool calculated depraved and heartless manner in which the applicant behaved with her leading her to commit suicide and the circumstance that six other cases under Section 420 read with 34. I.P.C. are pending against the applicant, this is not a fit case wherein he should be granted bail. I.P.C. are pending against the applicant, this is not a fit case wherein he should be granted bail. If bail is readily granted in such cases, there would be a spurt in their incidence; its refusal would deter people form committing them. Courts cannot be oblivious to the social perspective. It is as important as an individual's liberty. Which of the scales should tilt in a given case would depend on its facts. And in the instant, they, tilt on the side of social perspective. Hence, the individual liberty of the applicant has to yield to societal good. Prayer for bail is rejected. The trial Judge would not be influenced by this order while deciding the trial. The observations contained herein are only to be read in the context of disposal of this application. Application dismissed.