Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions filed by petitioners Surat Singh and Krishan in Criminal Misc. No. 18893-M of 2002 and Om Parkash and Rohtash in Criminal Misc. No. 24113-M of 2002 seeking bail in case hearing FIR No. 4 dated 4.2.2002 registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station G.R.P., Sirsa. 2. The case came to be registered on the statement of Vijay Singh son of Het Ram, resident of village Kanwarpura, Police Station, Dhing, District Sirsa. As per his version he had two sons and one daughter. His son Narender along with his family was living separately for the last about four years. His other son Sanjeev alias Sajjan was living with him. Narender was gainfully employed in the trade of buffaloes with his maternal uncle Om Parkash, resident of Chhani Bari for the last one year. He was living at Chattargarh Patti, Sirsa in his house which was construed by him. During the first day of previous month, message was received by the complainant from Narender that he should visit his house as he was having cash with him and that he was also apprehending threat to his life. On reaching there, he found that Narender was not present at his house. He found Chander Bhan, brother-in-law and Gopal, maternal uncle of Narenders wife, resident of Mora Khera present in the house. The complainant looked for Narender on the next day but he could not find any clue about his whereabouts and for that reasons he returned to his residence. Wife and children of Narender had accompanied her brother to village Kuleri. Three days thereafter Narender returned to the house. On receipt of this information, the complainant went there and met him. On enquiry made from Narender, he was informed by him that Om Parkash, his maternal uncle, had embezzled Rs. 2 1/2 lacs by showing loss in the business. Even his house was got transferred by Om Parkash in his own name. His motorcycle and two buffaloes were also taken away by Om Parkash. Meanwhile, Om Parkash also reached there and the complainant had discussed the matter with him. He was informed by Om Parkash that Narender had embezzled the money by showing loss in the business and he had insisted that his money to the extent of Rs. His motorcycle and two buffaloes were also taken away by Om Parkash. Meanwhile, Om Parkash also reached there and the complainant had discussed the matter with him. He was informed by Om Parkash that Narender had embezzled the money by showing loss in the business and he had insisted that his money to the extent of Rs. 1,25,000/- be returned to him. He also asked the complainant that he should sell his land or house as the money was needed by him. On 2.2.2002, Om Parkash, his son Rohtash and Krishan Saharan residents of Chhani Bari came to the house of the complainant and enquired about Narender. The complainant informed that Narender had gone to see his brother-in-law, upon which they became furious and abused him. They again asked him to return the money otherwise they would see him and his son. After four-five hours thereafter, Narender came to the Dhani of the complainant and informed him that on the way, Om Parkash, Rohtash and Krishnan Kumar Sarharan in the company of one other person had given. him beating. They had also asked him to arrange the money otherwise they would finish him. On 4.2.2002, Harpat Fauzi, neighbourer of the complainant informed him that he had received a telephonic call to the effect that Narender had committed suicide by consuming poisonous thing at Adampur Railway Station. On receiving this information, the complainant went to Adampur Railway Station along with his brother Dalip Singh, Prem Singh and other persons. He found the dead body of Narender. The police had also recovered one suicide note in which detailed account leading to the cause of death of his son was given. Narender had stated in the suicide note that he had committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on account of harassment and fear of Om Parkash, Rohtash and Krishan Kumar Saharan. The case is still under investigation. 3. Counsel for the petitioners, while pressing for their bail mainly contended before me that taking the allegations stated in the report lodged, on the face value no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners as demand of money made by Om Parkash could not be construed as abatement to commit suicide. 3. Counsel for the petitioners, while pressing for their bail mainly contended before me that taking the allegations stated in the report lodged, on the face value no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners as demand of money made by Om Parkash could not be construed as abatement to commit suicide. It was also submitted by them that no report was.lodged with regard to the injuries stated to have been caused by Surat Singh, Krishan Kumar Saharan, Om Parkash and Rohtash and a totally false story had been put up by Vijay Singh in order to attribute the incident to them by providing a cause of grievance to Narender, son of the complainant. It was further submitted by them that it deserves notice that the complainant is out to settle the score with them because Narender, though of his own volition, had committed suicide. While referring to the version given in the suicide note, which was recovered from the body of the deceased by the Police, it was contended that allegations therein are against Om Parkash and his son Rohtash to the effect that they had partnership business of buffaloes with Narender and in that business Om Parkash had shown the loss and for that reason he was asking Narender to pay his share of the amount to him. The other aspect, according to the counsel for the petitioner, stated in the suicide note was not only with regard to the agreement in respect of sale of house of Narender but also that the payment of the amount had not been made in respect of the said transaction and thus no allegation of cheating or fraud against Surat Singh and Krishan Kumar Saharan was made out in this regard. It was also submitted by him that in the suicide note it was stated that Rohtash had taken away motorcycle of Narender in his absence but the Police during investigation had examined him and on the basis of disclosure statement it was revealed that motorcycle was in fact sold by Narender to Surinder son of Ram Partap and he had also received Rs. 500/- as earnest money from him and the balance amount was to be paid by Surinder to Narender in November 2001 and affidavit to this effect was executed by Narender which is in possession of Surinder as had come out in the statements of Head Constables Bishan Singh and Constable Savtar Singh and their police statements recorded on 23.2.2002 in this regard. It was pointed out by him that the recovery of motorcycle was made by the police on 7.4.2002 and thereafter challan had been filed in Court. This recovery had been planted upon petitioner-accused, Om Parkash, in the report filed. 4. It was also submitted during the course of arguments that Surat Singh, petitioner No. 1 is elder brother of the complainant and had strained relation with him as he had lodged a case bearing FIR No. 6 dated 7.1.1999 under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in which Narender, deceased, Prem Singh and Dalip Singh had been named as accused by him as is evident from the copy of the report lodged (Annexure P-3) and for that reasons he had been implicated in the present case by the complainant on account of the previous enmity though factually petitioner No. 1 had no business dealing with Narender at all. As regards Krishan Kumar Saharan, petitioner No. 2, it was stated that at no stage he had business dealing with Om Parkash and Rohtash or Narender, deceased. Rather petitioner No. 2 was employed as servant with Om Parkash and had no direct relations in the dealings with Narender, deceased. 5. In support of the bail applications, reliance was placed on Munish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.J. 3066 (Raj.); Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) RCR(Crl.) 558 (P&H); Pawanjit Singn alias Babloo v. State of Punjab, 1994(4) RCR (Cr.) 157; Puneet Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1999(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 475 and Sanju alias Sanja Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 687 (SC) : JT 2000 Supp.(1) SC 248. 6. Opposing the submissions made it had been contended by the State Counsel that definite accusations had been made not only against the petitioners-accused in the report lodged by the complainant but also in the suicide note recovered from the dead body of the deceased during the course of investigation. 6. Opposing the submissions made it had been contended by the State Counsel that definite accusations had been made not only against the petitioners-accused in the report lodged by the complainant but also in the suicide note recovered from the dead body of the deceased during the course of investigation. It was further pointed out by him that Narender was driven to commit suicide because of the harassment, beating and constant fear created in his mind out of the threat given by the petitioners-accused to make the payment due to Om Parkash. As per the report lodged by Vijay Singh, father of the deceased, there was a business dealing between the deceased and Om Parkash and a loss had resulted in the business. According to the stand taken by the complainant. Om Parkash was insisting Narender to make the payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- to him and in order to secure that payment he had also suggested to the deceased that he should sell his house. For persisting with the demand, accused Om Parkash along with Rohtash and Krishan Kumar Saharan had visited the house of the complainant on 2.2.2002. Information with regard to the suicide committed by Narender was received on 4.2.2002. 7. The merits of the respective stands taken by the parties have to adjudicated during the trial of the case. However, it cannot be ignored that it is admitted case of the prosecution that Narender was having business dealings with Om Parkash. There is allegation and counter-allegation between the complainant and the accused with regard to the loss suffered in the business as is spelled out from the report lodged. It was represented on behalf of Om Parkash, petitioner accused that loss had been suffered in the business and for that reason he was persisting for the return of the money of his share with the deceased. On the other hand, attribution of loss made to Om Parkash by the complainant is that it was he who had sold the buffaloes to damage the, interest of the deceased. The loss in business according to the petitioners-accused and demand made from the side of the accused was the prime reason which had led the deceased to commit suicide. 8. The loss in business according to the petitioners-accused and demand made from the side of the accused was the prime reason which had led the deceased to commit suicide. 8. Taking into account the totality of circumstances brought on record during the course of investigation, I accept the petitions and order that the petitioners shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking therein to appear in trial Court till the decision of the case. If the petitioners commit any default in this regard, the learned trial Judge would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.