Judgment :- 1 The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A1 to A4, were arrested on 2.2.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC in Cr. No. 265 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police have come forward with this petition, seeking for the relief of bail. 2 Mr. K.S. Dinakaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner is the Professor and Head of the Department of BCS in Dr. MGR Janaki College of Arts and Science, Adyar, Chennai and petitioners 2 to 4 are the lecturers working in the same department in the said college. It is submitted that the case of the prosecution is to the effect that a complaint was preferred by a classmate of the victim in this case on 29.1.2011, alleging that a cash of ` 3,000/- was missing from her hand bag. It is further alleged that in view of the said complaint, the petitioners said to have searched by stripping the clothes of the victim in this case namely Divya, studying in 3rd year BCS course in the said college and as a result, she has committed suicide on 1.2.2011 at 7.45 p.m. by hanging herself at her residence. It is submitted that the further allegation is to the effect that a suicidal note was also left by the victim stating that the teachers enquired all the students for the theft of cash amount in the classroom of the victim. 3 The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations contained in the complaint do not even constitute the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. It is contended that there is absolutely no material available on record to the effect that the petitioners instigated or intentionally aided the victim to commit suicide. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further contended that the alleged suicidal note said to have been written in a notebook of the victim does not disclose the names of the petitioners and the said suicidal note is also very vague and bald. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in the suicidal note it is merely stated that the victim was enquired along with other students and the allegations of stripping is not at all mentioned in the alleged suicidal note. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in the suicidal note it is merely stated that the victim was enquired along with other students and the allegations of stripping is not at all mentioned in the alleged suicidal note. It is contended that not only the victim alone was searched, but the other classmates of the victim were also searched even as per the admitted case of the prosecution. 4 The learned senior counsel contended that the prosecution claimed that the victim informed her mother on the same day i.e., on 29.1.2011 about the alleged search by stripping her clothes. The parents of the victim has not reported the matter to the Principal of the College. It is contended that the lecturers and the Head of the Department of BCS in the said college have been arrested without any basis and without any valid reasons. 5 The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the victim was said to have been searched on 29.1.2011 and she has attended the college on 31.1.2011 and on 1.2.2011 and the victim alleged to have committed suicide only on 1.2.2011 at 7.45 p.m. at her residence. The learned senior counsel contended that the petitioners are very much available and they are hailing from respectable family and they are attending the college for teaching the students and there is absolutely no material whatsoever available on record to show that the petitioners are likely to abscond or flee from justice. The learned senior counsel submitted that in spite of the above said factors, the respondent police has chosen to arrest the petitioners on 2.2.2011 and they were remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to seek the relief of bail. 6 Per contra, Mr. A. Saravanan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the case of the prosecution is to the effect that on the basis of the complaint of theft of cash of ` 3,000/- preferred by the classmate of the victim namely Divya, a 3rd year BCS student of Dr. MGR Janaki College of Arts and Science, Adyar, Chennai, the petitioners, who are working as Professor/Head of the Department of BCS and Lecturers of the same department in the said college said to have searched the victim by stripping her clothes. MGR Janaki College of Arts and Science, Adyar, Chennai, the petitioners, who are working as Professor/Head of the Department of BCS and Lecturers of the same department in the said college said to have searched the victim by stripping her clothes. It is contended that though the allegation of stripping is not mentioned in the suicidal note, the said allegation was made by the mother of the victim as per her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the friend of the victim also stated the same in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the investigation is now pending at the crucial stage and in the event of granting bail, the likelihood of tampering and interfering in the investigation by the petitioners could not be ruled out as some more students have to be examined by the Investigating Officer. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also produced the case diary before this Court. 7 This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the counter filed by the respondent and the case diary. 8 This is a very unfortunate case wherein it is alleged that a victim girl who was studying in the 3rd year BCS course has taken the extreme step of putting an end to her life by hanging herself on the ground that the teachers enquired her by stripping her clothes on the complaint of her classmate for missing of ` 3,000/- cash. It is equally unfortunate that the petitioners, who are working as Professor/Head of the Department of BCS and Lecturers in the same department of the college, have been implicated in this case and the respondent police arrested and they were languishing in prison right from 2.2.2011. It is pertinent to note that the alleged enquiry and search were taken place on 29.1.2011 and admittedly the victim girl attended the college on 31.1.2011 and on 1.2.2011 and she has taken the extreme step of putting an end to her life at 7.45 p.m. on 1.2.2011. 9 A perusal of the alleged suicidal note said to have been written by the victim in a note book discloses that the same does not contain the signature of the victim. 9 A perusal of the alleged suicidal note said to have been written by the victim in a note book discloses that the same does not contain the signature of the victim. It is relevant to incorporate the exact note hereunder: “Tamil” The above said note does not disclose that the victim has expressed her intention to commit suicide. The said note is addressed to the teacher generally. Yet another aspect to be seen from the said note is that the present allegation of searching the victim by stripping her clothes was not mentioned in the said note. The prosecution alleged that the said version was given by the mother of the victim and by her friend during the course of investigation. It is the admitted version of the prosecution that the victim alone was not subjected to search but her classmates were also subjected to search. One of the classmates by name Padmavathi has stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that all the classmates ‘handbags have been searched uniformly and they have also been searched independently and in a similar way, the victim, Divya, was also searched and she has not stated that the victim was subjected to search by stripping her clothes. At this stage it is also relevant to state that though the mother claimed that she was informed on the same day, i.e., on 29.1.2011 about striping of the clothes by the victim, she has not enquired the teachers and she has not given any report to the Principal. It is seen from the materials available on record by the perusal of the case diary that the victim was attending the college for two days, i.e., on 31.1.2011 and 1.2.2011 and only on the evening of 1.2.2011, i.e., at 7.45 p.m., she has committed suicide. It is pertinent to note that the case was originally registered only under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the same was altered to one under Section 306 IPC only on 2.2.2011. The names of the petitioners were neither mentioned in the First Information Report nor mentioned in the altered First Information Report while altering the offence under Section 306 IPC. It is merely stated in the altered First Information Report that the college lecturers enquired and searched the victim along with her classmates for missing of cash of ` 3,000/- from one Anuratha, the classmate of the victim. It is merely stated in the altered First Information Report that the college lecturers enquired and searched the victim along with her classmates for missing of cash of ` 3,000/- from one Anuratha, the classmate of the victim. 10 The learned senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that neither the complaint nor other materials available on record do not attract the ingredients for the offence under Sections 306 IPC. It is relevant to refer few decisions in respect of the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. The Hon‘ble Apex Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1995 SCC (Cri.) 1157 held hereunder: “ Whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. ” 11 In a latest decision Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 917 : (2010) 2 MLJ CRL 410, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held her under: “ Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing....... It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. ”In the said decision, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has also held that in order to attract the penal provision under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. 12 At this stage, this Court cannot go deep into the merits of the case by assessing the materials as the said exercise would amount to appreciation of evidence. 12 At this stage, this Court cannot go deep into the merits of the case by assessing the materials as the said exercise would amount to appreciation of evidence. It is suffice for this Court to evaluate the materials available on record to find out whether there is prima facie ground made out for granting the relief of bail. 13 By keeping the above said principle, it is to be reiterated, as pointed out earlier, that the alleged suicidal note cannot be construed to be a suicidal note and the same does not disclose the intention of the victim to commit suicide. The said note does not contain the names of the petitioners. Above all, the present allegation of searching the victim by stripping her clothes not mentioned in the said note and the signature of the victim is also not found. Added to above such admitted factors, it is to be seen that the perusal of the case diary does not disclose any valid reasons for resorting to the action of arrest. The arrest is not a must in every case. The police officials cannot resort to arrest in arbitrary and mechanical fashion. The facts and circumstances of each case to be considered for taking a decision to arrest an accused. 14 At this juncture, it is relevant to refer a landmark decision rendered by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P and Others AIR 1994 SC 1349 :wherein it was held hereunder: “ The Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrests. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abide. “ No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. “ No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the al rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person ‘ s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the al concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. ” 15 The same principle was reiterated by the Hon‘ble Apex Court again in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 :by following the principle laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P and Others (supra) case. 16 The Hon‘ble Apex Court again in Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka AIR 2008 SC 1126 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cr) 73 : (2008) 3 SCC 753 , has held as under: “ Section 2 (c) Cr.P.C defines a cognizable ofence as an offence in which a police officer may arrest without warrant. Similarly Section 41 Cr.P.C., states that a police officer may arrest a person involved in a cognizable offence. The use of the word “ may ” shows that a police officer is not bound to arrest even in a case of a cognizable offence. Similarly Section 41 Cr.P.C., states that a police officer may arrest a person involved in a cognizable offence. The use of the word “ may ” shows that a police officer is not bound to arrest even in a case of a cognizable offence. Again in Section 157(1) Cr.P.C it is mentioned that a police officer shall investigate a case relating to a cognizable offence, and if necessary take measures for the arrest of a offender. This again makes it clear that arrest is not a must in every case of a cognizable offence. When a police officer should arrest and when not is clarified in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P and Others (supra) case. ” 17 At this stage, it is also relevant to refer one of the reports of the National Police Commission, in which it is stated as here under: “ Nearly 60% of the arrests were unnecessary, and as such, unjustified. The Commission estimated that 43.25% expenditure in the connected jails was over such prisoners who in the ultimate analysis need not have been arrested at all. ” 18 In a latest decision, the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others AIR 2011 SC 312 : (2010) 4 MLJ CRL 745, has held as under: “ 93. ..... According to the report of the National Police Commission, the power of arrest is grossly abused and clearly violates the personal liberty of the people, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the Courts need to take serious notice of it. When conviction rate is admittedly less than 10%, then the police should be slow in arresting the accused. The Courts considering the bail application should try to maintain the balance between the societal interest vis-a-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent Court. 95. The gravity of charge and exact role of the accused must be properly apprehended. Before arrest; the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases the reasons could be recorded immediately after the arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the Court. ......... Before arrest; the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases the reasons could be recorded immediately after the arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the Court. ......... 97. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage. ” The principle laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra makes it crystal clear that the investigating agency cannot resort to the action of arresting the accused in a mechanical and arbitrary fashion. They have to exercise such power by assigning valid reasons for resorting to arrest the accused. The perusal of the case diary produced by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) before this Court reveals that there is absolutely no reason much less valid reason recorded by the investigating agency in the case diary for arresting the accused. Only in the remand report, it is stated that the accused namely the petitioners herein admitted their guilt during his enquiry and accordingly all the four petitioners have been arrested on 2.2.2011 at 1.30 p.m. At this stage, this Court need not go into the admissibility of such statements said to have been recorded by the police as the legal position is very much clear even as per the provision empowering the police officials to record such statements. 19 The perusal of the case diary reveals that the confessional statement said to have been recorded only from the 1st petitioner viz. Jayalakshmi and the 3rd petitioner viz., P. Selvi. It is seen that it was shown by the arresting officer that a confessional statement was recorded from the 1st petitioner in the presence of two witnesses. But as far as the 3rd petitioner viz., P. Selvi is concerned, there is no indication that the said statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses. In respect of the other two petitioners, the case diary does not disclose alleged confession said to have been recorded by the arresting officer. But as far as the 3rd petitioner viz., P. Selvi is concerned, there is no indication that the said statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses. In respect of the other two petitioners, the case diary does not disclose alleged confession said to have been recorded by the arresting officer. Except the above said two alleged confessional statements said to have been given to the arresting officer, the perusal of the case diary does not disclose that the arresting officer recorded valid reasons in the case diary for arresting the accused. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that all the petitioners are ladies and they are very much available in the college premises and there is no allegation that they are attempting to evade the due process of law by absconding or fleeing from justice. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the arrest of the petitioners is unnecessary, unwarranted and unjustified. 20 It is pertinent to note that entire faculty members of a particular department of the college have been arrested including the Head of the Department. It is needless to state that such a measure would cause serious hardship to the students of the college as they have been deprived of their teachings in the respective course in view of the absence of the teachers. 21 A reading of the counter filed by the respondent itself discloses that already material witnesses have been examined and their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the petitioners are languishing in the prison right from 2.2.2011 and as such, there is no justification for further incarceration. 22 Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of ` 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and on condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. for a period of ten days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.