JUDGMENT : This is an application, under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 829/2009 registered at P. S. Piplani, Distt. Bhopal, initially in respect of the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but subsequently converted into a case under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code also. 2. Contents of the suicide note forming basis of the FIR may be summarized as under - (i) On 14-4-2008, the applicant together with co-accused Chhotan Prasad and Dhirendra Kumar had taken a sum of Rs. 2 crores 40 lacs as loan from Jaiprakash Singh (since deceased). Out of that, a total sum of Rs. 1 crore was repaid by applicant and Chhotan Prasad by way of two cheques dated 3-9-2008 and 6-9-2008 issued on behalf of M/s SVR Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a Company having its registered office at Sector 23, Carterpuri, Gurgaon, Haryana (for short 'the Company'). Thereafter, despite repeated demands, the remaining amount of Rs. 1 crore 40 lacs was not paid. (ii) On 14-1-2009, co-accused Chhottan Prasad and his son Dhirendra Kumar, upon a false pretext of paying off the remaining amount of debt, persuaded Jaiprakash to go to Indore for bringing money. Accordingly, he along with Dhirendra went there in his Altis Car bearing Registration No. CG-O4DK-0001 driven by Chandramohan. However, at Indore, both Jaiprakash and Chandramohan were abducted with the assistance of co-accused Pramod Singh, Shailendra Kadam, Surendra, Shaukat, Bablu, Pappu, Maniya, Ashu and ten others and were taken to an unknown destination located in Jungle where they were secretly and wrongfully confined for two days. In the meanwhile, even after taking the amount of Rs. 5 lacs kept in the car and relieving him of a cell phone bearing number 9303172344, the miscreants subjected Jaiprakash to torture and sedation and thereby forced him to inform his brother Chandraprakash telephonically about their demand for a ransom of Rs. 50 lacs. Co-accused Pramod made him to ask Chandraprakash to pay the amount of ransom to Chhotan Prasad who, in turn, compelled Chandraprakash to deliver the original title deeds relating to properties belonging to Jaiprakash to secure his release. 50 lacs. Co-accused Pramod made him to ask Chandraprakash to pay the amount of ransom to Chhotan Prasad who, in turn, compelled Chandraprakash to deliver the original title deeds relating to properties belonging to Jaiprakash to secure his release. But, even after handing over of the desired sum and the documents to Chhotan Prasad, the co-accused before setting Jaiprakash free made him to execute a document acknowledging his liability to repay a loan amount of Rs. 2 crore 40 lacs. He was further threatened that in case, he disclosed the incident to anyone, his brother and son would be abducted and killed. (iii) This apart, as many as 15 persons were sent to escort Jaiprakash from Indore to his residence at Bhopal. Threatening the inmates with dire consequences, they stayed at night in the house. On the following day, all of them shifted to Jaiprakash's farmhouse situated in Hataikheda and continued to reside there as his guests. During their stay at the farmhouse, the offenders, while intimidating Jaiprakash every now and then, demanded an amount of Rs. 1 crore for themselves and Rs. 3 crores and 10 lacs for the Company. Ultimately, they succeeded in extorting a total amount of Rs. 3 crores and 10 lacs, collected by Jaiprakash by selling his properties. They also made Jaiprakash to execute a sale deed in respect of his agricultural land situated at village Nipaniya Jat reflecting that the consideration had already been paid by way of the cheques issued on behalf of the company. However, they further assured to re-transfer the land in his favour only after receiving a sum of Rs. 1 crore. Thereafter, by putting Jaiprakash in fear of death, they had wrongfully taken his Swift and Wagon-R Cars despite the fact that his Altis car was already in their possession since 14th January. Moreover, he was also compelled to part with Gold Jewellery worth Rs. 10 lacs purchased from Anmol Jewellers and clothes worth Rs. 1.5 lacs purchased from A To Z Garments, T. T. Nagar, Bhopal and was also pressurized to sell his farmhouse located in Hataikheda. (iv) All the aforesaid misdeeds were committed at the instance of the applicant as the leader of the gang and his close associates namely Pramod Singh, Chhotan Prasad and Dhirendra. (v) After being impoverished and financially ruined, he had no other option but to take a retrograde step. 3. (iv) All the aforesaid misdeeds were committed at the instance of the applicant as the leader of the gang and his close associates namely Pramod Singh, Chhotan Prasad and Dhirendra. (v) After being impoverished and financially ruined, he had no other option but to take a retrograde step. 3. Thus, the allegations; in short, are that in order to avoid repayment of an outstanding amount of Rs. 1 crore and 40 lacs, the applicant with the assistance of the co-accused, had persistently subjected Jaiprakash to torture both physical and mental and harassment to such an extent that Jaiprakash was left with no other option except to commit suicide and consequently, he shot himself dead after killing his 4-year-old son Yash by firing shot through the same revolver. 4. On 13-11-2009 at about 2 p.m., dead bodies of Jaiprakash and his 4-year-old son Yash were found in Hataikheda farmhouse where as per the version given by his family members, he had gone along with Yash on the same day at about 5.30 in the morning. Near the dead bodies, the following articles were found - (i) His 6-round Webleys Scott revolver loaded with 4 live cartridges and two empty cartridge cases stuck in the chamber. (ii) Three mobile cell phones having numbers (iii) A Register (iv) A blood stained pillow beneath the head of Jaiprakash and (v) A blood stained pillow beneath the head of Yash containing a bullet which had passed through and through his head. 5. Learned Senior Counsel has urged that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the following facts - (i) The applicant, a businessman having his working unit in Dhar District, is a respectable member of the society with no criminal antecedents. (ii) There is no cogent evidence on record to suggest that he was one amongst the persons to whom a sum of Rs. 2 crores and 40 lacs was advanced by Jaiprakash as loan. (ii) There is no cogent evidence on record to suggest that he was one amongst the persons to whom a sum of Rs. 2 crores and 40 lacs was advanced by Jaiprakash as loan. (iii) There is no explanation as to why immediately after knowing about the death of Jaiprakash, his brother Chandraprakash did not hand over the suicide note to the police officer making inquiry into the Morgue (death Case), which was registered upon intimation given by him at 5.10 p.m., much prior to recording of the FIR at 10.30 p.m. (iv) Till now, the investigating Agency has not been able to obtain any definite expert opinion as to authenticity of the signatures on the so-called suicide note. (v) Although, it was alleged that on 14-1-2009, Jaiprakash was taken by Dhirendra Kumar to Indore and was abducted there for ransom of Rs. 50 lacs for which calls were made by Jaiprakash to his brother Chandraprakash on the cell phone, yet the call details for the corresponding period clearly indicate that Jaiprakash had remained well within the territories of Bhopal District during the period from 14-1-2009 to 18-1-2009. (vi) The factual position, as highlighted by Rakesh Jain, the authorized signatory of the Company, in his letter (Annexure A-5) addressed to the Station House Office indicates that the applicant has no connection whatsoever with its affairs. (vii) Air tickets and the corresponding certificates given by Jet Airways go to suggest that during the period from 13-1-2009 to 18-1-2009, the applicant was far away from Indore. Even otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence as to complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence of abduction for ransom. (viii) The FIR leading to registration of another case as Crime No. 832/09 at the same police station by Chandraprakash gave an altogether different version. Even otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence as to complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence of abduction for ransom. (viii) The FIR leading to registration of another case as Crime No. 832/09 at the same police station by Chandraprakash gave an altogether different version. According to him, - on the fateful day i.e. 13-11-09 at about 11:30 to 12 noon, he had seen as many as 6 persons including one Roopesh Gorkhe, the Manager of Agrawal Constructions, proceeding in a black Scorpio and a white van towards Hataikheda Farm House and as he reached the farm house, the watchman namely Arjun Singh informed him that while hurling abuses at the watchman as well as at Jaiprakash, Roopesh and his companions had trespassed into the farm house; moved around; given repeated calls to Jaiprakash and broken the glass of a room located in the back side thereof. (ix) Case diary statements of Susheel Kumar Dhanwani, the proprietor of Anmol Jewellers, Reena Singh, the wife of Jaiprakash, and Brijesh Singh, an old friend of Jaiprakash were apparently inconsistent with the version recorded in the suicide note. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has further contended that even if the allegations made in the suicide note are taken at their face value, the offence under sections 306 read with 34 would not be made out against the applicant. To buttress the contention, reference has been made to the following decisions of the Apex Court - (i) Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108 , (ii)Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A. P., AIR 2010 SC 327 , (iii)Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 . While opposing the prayer for grant of bail, learned Govt. Advocate and learned counsel for the Objector have submitted that the suicide note is a genuine document in view of the fact that in his statement recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the scriber of the note viz. Rudraprakash @ Vikas has reaffirmed that on 11-11-2009 he had written the same at the dictation of Jaiprakash who was none other, than his real uncle. Rudraprakash @ Vikas has reaffirmed that on 11-11-2009 he had written the same at the dictation of Jaiprakash who was none other, than his real uncle. According to them, there is not an iota of evidence on record to infer that the wife or brother or any other relative of Jaiprakash is, in any way, interested in implicating the applicant on absolutely false grounds for any extraneous motive. They also emphasized that the applicant is apparently the main abettor of the suicide as there was a proximate and live link between his offending acts and the extreme step taken by Jaiprakash. To substantiate the argument, reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Dammu Sreenu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 AIR SCW4421. 1. However, while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the question as to whether the charge of the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out. Suffice it to notice the principle as explained in the abovementioned decisions that ingredients of the offence require proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of the accused and the suicide in question. 8. Further, the guiding rule of procedure is that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself (See. Niranjan Singh vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, AIR 1980 SC 785 ). Moreover, the factors to be taken into consideration for grant of anticipatory bail are the gravity of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation (Bharat Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2004(1) MPLJ (SC) 490 = AIR 2003 SC 4662 referred to). 9. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued that no useful purpose would be served in depriving the applicant of release on anticipatory bail in view of the fact that no custodial interrogation has to be done. 9. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued that no useful purpose would be served in depriving the applicant of release on anticipatory bail in view of the fact that no custodial interrogation has to be done. To buttress the contention, he has invited attention to the following recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41st Report that was quoted with approval by the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 - "The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail." Reference has also been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Hamit Ansari vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 3541 wherein the Apex Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, had granted relief to the applicants seeking anticipatory bail by directing the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation after surrender of the accused persons as expeditiously as possible and to release them after completion of interrogation and recovery of material object. 10. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it may be observed that the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh has already expressed his inability to give any definite opinion as to the authorship of signatures on the suicide note. As informed by learned Govt. Advocate, upon refusal of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Govt. of West Bengal to examine the signatures on the ground that similar facility is available in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the suicide note has -now been referred to an expert stationed at New Delhi for examination and opinion. As informed by learned Govt. Advocate, upon refusal of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Govt. of West Bengal to examine the signatures on the ground that similar facility is available in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the suicide note has -now been referred to an expert stationed at New Delhi for examination and opinion. However, fact of the matter is that even if for the sake of arguments, the suicide note is excluded from consideration, the statements of wife and other relatives of Jaiprakash would be sufficient to suggest complicity of the applicant as the mastermind or kingpin behind the transactions leading to his death. 11. Moreover, the document referred to as Annexure A-5 in the bail application, reflects two material facts (i) the information that Jaiprakash was interested in selling his agricultural land situated at village Nipaniajat, was communicated to Rakesh Jain, the Director of the Company by the applicant only and (ii) Chhotan Prasad is an employee of Kedia Group managed by the applicant. 12. This apart, the disturbing feature of the case is that dead body of his 4-­year-old child Yash was found near the dead body of Jaiprakash. Although, the revolver is also a rifled firearm yet, fact remains that the panel of autopsy surgeons has not given any definite opinion to the effect that both the shots were fired through the same firearm. According to them, - (i) death of Yash was caused due to shock and haemorrage as a result of perforating firearm injury to head brought into existence by a close range gunshot and was homicidal in nature. (ii) death of Jaiprakash was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of cranio-cerebral injury brought into existence by rifle gun from projectile fired through it from a close contact range. 13. Besides this, report of FSL has not been received so far. The obvious questions that arise in the these facts and circumstances of the case are - (i) if, at all, Jaiprakash wanted to commit suicide, why didn't he do so in his residence only and (ii) what was the reason that had driven him to (a) take his 4-year-old son to the farmhouse at an odd hour of 5.30 in the morning and (b) carry a loaded revolver. 14. 14. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Para 31 of the judgment rendered in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia 's case (supra), considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant to a prayer made for regular bail. Accordingly, - "In regard to anticipatory bail if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. However, it was further explained that - "it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the Court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the Court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail". 15. Viewed from these angles, I am of the opinion that the deaths of Jaiprakash and Yash are shrouded with suspicion and the case requires extensive investigation including custodial interrogation of the applicant. 16. To conclude, taking into consideration the nature of allegations and other facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on its merits, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 17. The application, therefore, stands dismissed. Application dismissed.