JUDGMENT :- This is an application for bail. 2. The applicant has been arrested in connection with crime No.02/2006 registered by Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad on 3rd of January, 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard Shri. V. R. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing with S/Shri. K. G. Bhosale, and Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri. E. P. Savant, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and Shri. P. M. Shaha, learned senior counsel with Smt. S. S. Jadhav and Shri. N. B. Suryawanshi appearing for complainant to assist the prosecution. 4. The allegation of the prosecution is that the applicant had called the deceased Kum. Sweta @ Rani some where in the month of November, 2004, at his residence on the pretext of meeting one Rani, who was common acquaintance and given her some drink. According to prosecution, after consuming the said drink she fell unconscious. It is the allegation that in that condition, certain photographs were taken and that the applicant was misusing the said photographs for blackmailing the deceased. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the blackmailing by the deceased was to such an extent that it left no alternative to deceased, but to commit suicide. It is also alleged that there was altercation between the applicant and the deceased on or about 15th of December, 2005, wherein the applicant insisted that the deceased should marry with him. It is alleged that on refusal of the deceased to marry with the applicant, the applicant retorted and threatened to end the family of the deceased. It is alleged that on the night intervening 30th and 31st December, 2005 the deceased consumed poison and ended her life. The prosecution has strongly relied on the alleged suicide note which was found on the side of the bed of the deceased in the morning of 31st December, 2005. It is alleged that the said suicide note attributes positive role to the present applicant and that the suicide was committed only on account of the harassment by the present applicant. 5. Shri. V. R. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that taking entire allegations of the prosecution as it is, still no case is made out for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Shri. V. R. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that taking entire allegations of the prosecution as it is, still no case is made out for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying on the provisions of Section 306 read with Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code, he submits that what is necessary to bring home an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is an instigation to commit the suicide. It is submitted that there is nothing in the F.I.R. or the suicide note with would show that the applicant had committed any act or omission which would amount to instigation by the, applicant to the deceased to commit suicide. Shri. V. R. Manohar, learned senior counsel to support this proposition, relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998 and in the case of Mahendra Singh and another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 894. He also relies on the Judgment of this court in the case of Satish s/o. Narayan Ate Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1991 Cri.L.J.935. Lastly, he relies on the Judgmenl of Kerala High Court of Cyriac s/o. Devassai & another Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy & another reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 27. 6. Shri. V. R. Manohar, learned senior counsel for the applicant, has also submitted that the bills of the mobile phones used by the deceased and the applicant shows that right from 2004 till October, 2005 there used to be a continuous conversation and exchange of S.M.S. (Short Messaging Service) between the applicant and the deceased. 7. As against this, Shri. E. P. Savant, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the application. He submits that the suicide note itself is telling of the involvement of the present applicant in the crime in question. He submits that the blackmailing and the harassment by the present applicant was to such an extent that the deceased was left with no alternative than to commit suicide. He further submits that investigation is still not completed. He submits that further photographs and the negatives are to be seized and also certain other material is required to be seized. He submits that the blackmailing and the harassment by the present applicant was to such an extent that the deceased was left with no alternative than to commit suicide. He further submits that investigation is still not completed. He submits that further photographs and the negatives are to be seized and also certain other material is required to be seized. He submits that since that investigation is pending, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 8. Shri. E. P. Savant, learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the version in the suicide note is also corroborated by the statements of one Hemanshu Jain, Chakradhar Dalvi, Siddharth Godse and Damodhar More. He submits that these statements would show that the present applicant was circulating the photographs and by circulating them trying to blackmail the deceased. 9. Shri. P. M. Shaha, learned senior counsel, Smt. S. S. Jadhav and Shri. N. B. Suryawanshi, learned counsel, have adopted the arguments submitted by Shri. E. P. Savant, learned Public Prosecutor. They submit that the offence is a serious offence. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in heinous crime and as such he is not entitled for the bail. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 785 has held that detailed examination on merits or demerits of the matter and elaborate documentation of the evidence should be avoided at the stage of grant of bail. In that view of the matter though the learned counsel have advanced their elaborate arguments on the applicability of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the sufficiency or insufficiency of the prosecution material to prove the complicity of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, I refrain myself from going into detailed examination of the merits or demerits in the matter. 11. From the perusal of the material in support of the prosecution, what can be seen is that the allegation of the prosecution is that the applicant some where in the month of November, 2004 had called the deceased to his residence on the pretext of meeting with one Rani Thombre the common acquaintance of two of them. It is the case of the prosecution that some drink was given to her, after which she fell unconscious. It is the case of the prosecution that some drink was given to her, after which she fell unconscious. It is further case that in a doped condition certain photographs were taken of the applicant and the deceased and on the basis of the said photographs the applicant was trying to black mail and harass her. The prosecution is also relying on the statement of one Chakradhar Dalvi in support of it's case that the present applicant along with his parents had met him and told him that there was a love affairs between the applicant and the deceased and that he should make efforts to get applicant and the deceased married. It is also the allegation that accordingly the said Chakradhar Dalvi had met the father of the deceased. The prosecution is also relying on the statement of Hemanshu Jain and Siddharth Godse in support of their case that the applicant was in possession of certain photographs snapped with the deceased. The said statements are also urged to be used in support of the alleged meeting held on 15th December, 2005, where there was an altercation between the applicant and the deceased and her brother Amit at Hotel Rama International. In the said incident, the applicant is said to have threatened the deceased to kill her family if she does not marry him. It is also the prosecution case that the deceased and Amit retorted applicant and stated that he may do whatever he wanted to do. 12. Therefore, taking entire material in possession of the prosecution at its face value the case appears to be that the applicant has taken certain photographs with the deceased by duping her and used the said photographs for the purpose of black mailing and harassing her. I have perused the photographs which are seized by the police so also the photographs which were produced on record by the applicant. Prima facie I find that the said photographs do not appear to have been taken in a doped condition as alleged by the prosecution. However, I refrain myself from stating anything further, as the investigation according to the prosecution is still in progress. 13. It can further be seen that the last link which the prosecution is relying on, to implicate the present applicant for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is the incident dated 15th of December, 2005. However, I refrain myself from stating anything further, as the investigation according to the prosecution is still in progress. 13. It can further be seen that the last link which the prosecution is relying on, to implicate the present applicant for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is the incident dated 15th of December, 2005. It can be seen that, there has been an intervening period of 15 days from 15th December, 2005 to 30th December, 2005. It can further be seen that there is no allegation even in the suicide note that the applicant was instigating her to commit suicide. The only allegation is that the applicant was asking the deceased to get married to him. The Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay cited supra, held that the intervening period of one day between the date of alleged date of provocation and the suicide was sufficient enough to absolve an accused for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, as the said provocation could not be held to be instigation. In the aforesaid case, the prosecution case was that on 25th July, 1998, the accused had used abusive words in the quarrel held between them. It was the prosecution case that on 27th July, 1998 the deceased taking the abusive language seriously had committed the suicide. However, the Apex Court found that the intervening period of one day between the alleged quarrel wherein the accused had used abusive language and the date of the incident i.e. 27thJuly, 1998 was not approximate enough to book the accused therein for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. In the present case, I find that there is no allegations in the complaint that the accused applicant was instigating the deceased to commit suicide. The last link which is used by the prosecution to implicate the present applicant for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is an incident dated 15th December, 2005. It can thus be seen that there has been period of about 15 days from the last link relied on by the prosecution to the date of incident. In is suicide note also there is nothing which would indicate that there was a immediate provocation to commit suicide. 15. The statements of almost all the witnesses are recorded. It can thus be seen that there has been period of about 15 days from the last link relied on by the prosecution to the date of incident. In is suicide note also there is nothing which would indicate that there was a immediate provocation to commit suicide. 15. The statements of almost all the witnesses are recorded. The incident is dated 31st of December, 2005, the F.I.R. is registered on 2nd January, 2006,the applicant came to be arrested on 3rd of January, 2006, the applicant was in police custody remand till 9th January, 2006 and thereafter is in Magisterial custody remand. Most of the photographs referred to hereinabove are already seized by the prosecution. In so far as the seizer of other photographs which according to the prosecution are in circulation and the seizer of the mobile bills, negatives etc is concerned, I do not find that any purpose would be served by depriving the applicant of his liberty in an much as he is already in the Magisterial Custody Remand and not in the Police Custody Remand. On the contrary, I find that the interest of the prosecution could be safeguarded by directing the applicant to co-operate with the investigation. 16. I, therefore, find that taking into consideration the material available against the applicant, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. However, taking in to consideration the apprehension of the prosecution and requirement to assist the investigation agency, certain stringthen conditions will have to be imposed on the applicant. 17. Hence, the order. (i) The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety of the like amount. (ii) The applicant is directed not to enter the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation area, till the charge-sheet is filed except as and when he is required to attend the court and as and when directed by the Investigating Officer, to assist in the matter of investigation. (iii) The applicant shall report to the Investigation Officer as and when directed by the Investigation Officer. (iv) The applicant shall report to Sadar Bazar Police Station, JaJna every day between 05.00 p.m. to 07.00 p.m. (v) The applicant shall not in any way make an attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall report to the Investigation Officer as and when directed by the Investigation Officer. (iv) The applicant shall report to Sadar Bazar Police Station, JaJna every day between 05.00 p.m. to 07.00 p.m. (v) The applicant shall not in any way make an attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The observations made hereinabove are purely on the basis of the appreciation of the material at it's prima facie stage and the learned trial court would not in any way be influenced by the observations made herein, at the stage of trial.