ORDER 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the applicant herein has filed this application for grant of regular bail to him who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.317/2014 registered at Police Station, Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh, for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC and Section 4 of CG Shaikshanik Sansthaon Me Pratara (Ragging) Ka Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2001 (for short, Adhiniyam, 2001). 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that, Nishant Upadhyay a student of MBBS first year studying in Late Lakhiram Agrawal Memorial Medical College, Raigarh, on 08.11.2014 at 4:30 PM in the hostel (Room No. 208 IInd Floor) being run by said college bolted the room and committed suicide by hanging himself out of humiliation and insult on account of ragging done by the present applicant and one co-accused Hiramani Patel within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Adhiniyam, 2001, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. 3. Shri Upendra Nath Awasthy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that present applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the case as such there is no material collected by the prosecution to connect the present applicant in crime in question. He would further submit that Nishant Upadhya had reached to the said hostel only in the late night on 7.11.2014 at 11 PM and committed suicide on 08.11.2014 at 4:30 PM and the alleged message sent through face book by the deceased to his colleague students namely; Ms. Swati Mishra, Ms. Aisha Singh and others, filed along with objection would clearly show that the said messages were sent allegedly in the month of October, whereas, he committed suicide on 8.11.2014 as in between there was sufficient time to settle and report to College/police authorities about the incident. He would further submit that in the inquiry conducted by order of Dean of said college, nothing has been found against the present applicant, he would further submit that applicant himself is a member of anti ragging committee and there is no reasonable nexus and proximity with the conduct and behaviour of the present applicant with the suicide committed by deceased Nishant Upadhyay, and no offence under Section 306 of IPC and Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, 2001 is made out, and he is in jail custody from 11.11.2014 as such, he is entitled to be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, Shri Chitranjay Patel, public prosecutor appearing for the State vehemently opposed the bail application stating inter alia that deceased was admitted in MBBS course to the said Medical College on 15.09.2014 and immediately thereafter he was subjected to ragging by the present applicant and co-accused Hiramani Patel being the seniors which is apparent from the face book messages sent by the deceased to his mother Priti Upadhyay as well as co-students Ms. Swati Mishra and Ms. Aisha Singh. He would further submit that in Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of his father Anup Upadhyay recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharsia, it would appear that on 07.10.2014 deceased Nishant sent face book message to his mother informing that his seniors including present applicant and Hiramani not only assaulted him, but also commanding him to dance at their tune and harassed him and the SMS message was repeated by the deceased to his mother which has been affirmed by Smt. Priti Upadhyay statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and also stated regarding harassment made by the seniors about the incident occurred on 07.10.2014. By referring report dated 11.11.2014 submitted by four members committee as constituted by the Dean of said college, he would further submit that act of ragging in the intervening night of 7 & 8 October, 2014 and thereafter by the applicant and other co accused, the deceased felt insulted and humiliated, he would also submit that presently investigation is on initial stage and further custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary and by referring face book and cell phone records of deceased and other students also submits that there is sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant and there is ground for believing that if the applicant is released on bail, he will tamper the prosecution witness, and therefore, the application for grant of regular bail to the applicant be rejected. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary carefully. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of records, the following facts would emerge on the face of record: • That, Nishant Upadhyay was admitted in the said Medical College only in the month of September, 2014, and on the date of suicide he was a student of MBBS first year staying in the hostel being run by the said college. • That, in the intervening night of 7 and 8 October, 2014 celebration was made in the hostel premises in which there was some altercation/dispute between senior and junior students in which senior students directed the juniors to behave properly as indicated in the report of four members committee dated 11.11.2014 submitted to the Dean of the said Medical College and in the said intervening night of 7 and 8 October, 2014, deceased had sent SMS through face book to his mother Smt. Priti Upadhyay indicating that senior students have harassed the juniors and also assaulted him, and thereafter, he had gone to his parental house at Varanasi and came back at night 11 PM on 07.11.2014 and on 08.11.2014 deceased did not attend his classes and committed suicide by hanging himself on 08.11.2014 at 4:30 PM at his room No.208 after bolting the room. • That, door of room was broken on the instructions of the Dean and the body of Nishant Upadhyay was found hanging and only thereafter the matter was informed to the concerned police. • That, in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the father of deceased has named the present applicant and co-accused Hiramani Patel as deceased had informed him over telephone about ragging being done by the present applicant and co-accused from time to time from September, 2014 to November, 2014, and also informed about face book messages sent by the deceased to his mother Smt. Priti Upadhyay and said statement has also been supported by the statement of mother Smt. Priti Upadhyay recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. 7. At this stage, it would be proper to notice the Adhiniyam, 2001, enacted to prevent ragging in educational institutions in the State. Section 2(a) of said Adhiniyam defines “ragging”. Section 3 prohibits that no student or an educational institution shall either directly or indirectly commit or take part in ragging and Section 4 prescribes punishment for ragging which may extend up to five years or with fine which may be up to five thousand rupees or with both and said offence would be cognizable and nonbailable. 8. Section 3 prohibits that no student or an educational institution shall either directly or indirectly commit or take part in ragging and Section 4 prescribes punishment for ragging which may extend up to five years or with fine which may be up to five thousand rupees or with both and said offence would be cognizable and nonbailable. 8. The Supreme Court in case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission through President v. Central Government through Cabinet Secretary and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2793 has broadly defined the ragging as under: “Any disorderly conduct whether by words spoken or written or by an act which has the effect of teasing, treating or handling with rudeness any other student, indulging in rowdy or indisciplined activities which causes or is likely to cause annoyance, hardship or psychological harm or to raise fear or apprehension thereof in a fresher or a junior student or asking the students to do any act or perform something which such student will not do in the ordinary course and which has the effect of causing or generating a sense of shame or embarrassment so as to adversely affect the physique or psyche or a fresher or a junior student The cause of indulging in ragging is deriving sadistic pleasure or showing off power, authority or superiority by the seniors over their juniors or freshers.” and also issued a direction/guideline in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under : “This Court views with concern the increase in the number of incidents of ragging in educational institutions. Some of the reported incidents have crossed the limits of decency, morality and humanity. Some of the States have acted by enacting legislations and making ragging as defined therein a cognizable and punishable offence. However, we feel ragging cannot be cured merely by making it a cognizable criminal offence. Moreover, we feel that the acts of indiscipline and misbehaviour on the part of the students must primarily be dealt with within the institution and by exercise of the disciplinary authority of the teachers over the students and of the management of the institutions over the teachers and students. Students ought not ordinarily be subjected to police action unless it be unavoidable. Students ought not ordinarily be subjected to police action unless it be unavoidable. The students going to educational institutions for learning should not remain under constant fear of being dealt with by police and sent to jail and face the courts. The faith in the teachers for the purpose of maintaining discipline should be restored and the responsibility fixed by emphasising the same.” 9. Thereafter, recently in case of University of Kerala Vs. Council of Principals of College in Kerala and Others, AIR 2009 SC 2223 the Supreme Court has expressed great concern regarding ragging in educational institution and by noticing the directions issued in case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission (Supra) has held as under : “12. Ragging in essence is a human rights' abuse. Ragging can be in various forms. It can be physical abuse or mental harassment. In present times shocking incidents of ragging have come to the notice. Sometimes violence is used. The student is physically tortured or psychologically terrorized. All human being should be free to claim, as a matter of right in the society in which they live, for life of dignity but when it is intentionally or recklessly damaged or departed then the person's human right is abused; in that sense ragging is the best example of human rights' abuse. XXX XX XXX 21. "Ragging" means causing, inducing, compelling or forcing a student, whether by way of a practical joke or otherwise, to do any act which detracts from human dignity or violates his person or exposes him to ridicule or to forbear from doing any lawful act, by intimidating, wrongfully restraining, wrongfully confining, or injuring him or by using criminal force to him or by holding out to him any threat of such intimidation, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, injury or the use of criminal force. 22. The word "ragging" colloquially means to tease or play practical jokes on someone, specially on students who are the fresh entrants in the schools, colleges, Universities or any other educational institutions. In the beginning, it was a way of introduction of the first year students in the institutions which gradually has become not only serious problem but also a social stigma. While in the age of a child in cradle, it was a harmless practice by senior students over their juniors. In the beginning, it was a way of introduction of the first year students in the institutions which gradually has become not only serious problem but also a social stigma. While in the age of a child in cradle, it was a harmless practice by senior students over their juniors. Regarding the origin or initiative steps of the ragging, it can be traced back to the Seventh or Eighth Century A.D.” 10. If the facts of present case are examined in the light of provisions contained in Adhiniyam, 2001, it would appear from the face book messages sent by the deceased to his mother Smt. Priti Upadhyay and his colleague students namely Swati Mishra & Aisha Singh, also from the report submitted by four members committee to the college and statement made by deceased's father and mother to the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that deceased was subjected to ragging by the applicant and coaccused time to time after admission into college and also in the intervening night of 7 and 8th October, 2014 by which he was not only physically tortured and psychologically depressed but also felt humiliated and insulted and thereby committed suicide by hanging himself on 08.11.2014 at 4:30 PM. 11. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration indisciplined activity of ragging undertaken by the applicant along with coaccused Hiramani Patel, by which the deceased was not only broken seriously, but also physically and mentally tortured, and finding no way, committed suicide. 11. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration indisciplined activity of ragging undertaken by the applicant along with coaccused Hiramani Patel, by which the deceased was not only broken seriously, but also physically and mentally tortured, and finding no way, committed suicide. As there is reasonable nexus and proximity with the conduct and behaviour of present applicant with the suicide committed by Nishant Upadhyay, and further considering the fact that matter is still under investigation and the State counsel has also expressed its apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail, he is likely to tamper the prosecution witness, and further taking into consideration the fact that ragging is a systematized form of human rights abuse and it is also a form of systematic and sustained physical and mental abuse of fresh students of college by seniors and has taken shape of human right violation though the ragging has been made cognizable non-bailable offence by the legislature, and despite the guidelines formulated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Vishwa Jagriti Mission case (supra), yet ragging continues unabated and young medical student, in his opening semester, has lost his life, I do not consider it a fit case to extend him the benefit of regular bail. 12. Accordingly, the application filed Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.