JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail qua FIR No. 188 of 2014 dated 17.10.2014 registered under Sections 354A, 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Indora District Kangra HP. 2. It is pleaded that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is pleaded that only allegation against the applicant is that applicant asked deceased Sunita Devi to stay away from his son. It is pleaded that applicant has also filed a complaint against deceased to the Pardhan Gram Panchayat Mohtali which was further sent to Police Station Damtal. It is pleaded that no recovery is to be effected from the applicant. It is pleaded that applicant will join investigation of the case. It is pleaded that applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence. It is pleaded that applicant will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. It is pleaded that applicant is the only bread earner in his family. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report in connection with FIR No. 188 of 2014 dated 17.10.2014 registered under Sections 354A, 306, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Indora District Kangra HP filed. There is recital in police report that on dated 17.10.2014 at about 9.30 AM deceased Sunita Devi informed police officials by way telephone that she would burnt herself because she was aggrieved from the act and conduct of co-accused Deepak and his father co-accused Ram Lal. There is recital in police report that police officials went to the house of deceased Sunita and Sunita Devi was found burnt. There is recital in police report that deceased Sunita Devi was brought for her medical treatment to CHC Indora and statement of deceased Sunita Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC. There is recital in police report that deceased Sunita Devi was married with Ram Kumar in the year 2006. There is recital in police report that husband of deceased Sunita Devi is working at Soudi Arabia and deceased used to reside along with two children in her matrimonial house. There is recital in police report that deceased Sunita Devi was married with Ram Kumar in the year 2006. There is recital in police report that husband of deceased Sunita Devi is working at Soudi Arabia and deceased used to reside along with two children in her matrimonial house. There is recital in police report that co-accused Deepak son of Ram Lal who is driver by profession used to tell deceased Sunita Devi when Sunita Devi was alone at her matrimonial house to accept relations with co-accused Deepak otherwise he would defame deceased Sunita Devi in the society. There is recital in police report that deceased had also narrated entire facts to her elder sister-in-law but to save reputation of family in the society no further action was taken. There is recital in police report that co-accused Deepak had threatened the deceased that he would defame the deceased in society in such a manner that deceased would not be in a position to live in the society. There is recital in police report that coaccused Deepak also used to threat deceased Sunita Devi to kill her. Case under Sections 354A, 306, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered and investigation was conducted by SI Ashok Kumar. MLC of deceased Sunita Devi obtained and site plan was also prepared. There is recital in police report that articles lying on the spot were sent for chemical examination and statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. There is recital in police report that deceased died on dated 31.10.2014 in the hospital. There is recital in police report that post mortem of deceased Sunita Devi was conducted. There is recital in police report that diary of deceased Sunita Devi took into possession. There is recital in police report that deceased Sunita Devi had committed suicide due to mental harassment of co-accused Ram Lal and his son Deepak. There is recital in police report that diary of deceased Sunita Devi has been sent to RFSL Dharamshala for expert opinion. There is recital in police report that there is resentment in the locality. Prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought. 4. There is recital in police report that diary of deceased Sunita Devi has been sent to RFSL Dharamshala for expert opinion. There is recital in police report that there is resentment in the locality. Prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present bail application: (1) Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application. (2) Final Order. 5. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and also perused entire record carefully. Finding upon Point No.1. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and on this ground present anticipatory bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Fact whether applicant is innocent or not cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be decided on merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that any condition imposed by the Court will be binding upon the applicant and applicant had also made a complaint against deceased Sunita Devi to Pardhan Gram Panchayat Mohtali and applicant is the only bread earner in his family and no recovery is to be effected from the applicant and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors are to be considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In the present case allegations against the applicant are very heinous and grave in nature. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In the present case allegations against the applicant are very heinous and grave in nature. Applicant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide when she was under prime age of her life. The fact whether there is direct nexus between abetment and suicide cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be decided on its merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Court is of the opinion that if anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant at this stage then investigation of the case will be adversely effected. Court is also of the opinion that if anticipatory bail application is allowed at this stage then interest of the State and general public will also be adversely effected. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that if the applicant is released on bail at this stage then applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witness is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. There is apprehension in the mind of the Court that if the applicant is released on anticipatory bail at this stage then applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witness. In view of the fact that investigation is in initial stage of case and in view of the fact that allegations against the applicant are very serious and grave in nature it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant on anticipatory bail at the initial stage of the investigation. Court is of the opinion that custodial investigation of the applicant is essential in the present case for proper investigation. Hence Point No.1 is answered in negative. Final Order 9. In view of my findings upon point No.1 present anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the applicant is rejected. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it shall not effect merits of case in any manner. All pending application (s) if any are also disposed of.