JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- The petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No.949 dated 14.12.2013 under Sections 147, 149 and 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. As in both these petitions FIR is the same, it is proposed to dispose of both these petitions by this common order. 2. Hearing has been provided to the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Surat Singh of village Ninan (District Bhiwani) father of complainant Rakesh, a retired employee, had committed suicide on the intervening night of 13/14.12.2013. Petitioner Sanjay along with his father nonapplicant Ram Bhagat, mother Smt. Roshni – non-applicant and his wife Smt. Santosh co-petitioner were living in the neighbourhood of the complainant. Petitioner, Vinod a resident of village Malar, who is the younger brother-in-law of petitioner Sanjay, had come to them. 4. As per the prosecution case, false complaints were made by Smt. Santosh, co-petitioner against Surat Singh (deceased) involving his character and money was being demanded by her from him for settling the matter. On 13.12.2013 Surat Singh (since deceased) had refused to accept their demand of payment of money, whereupon petitioner Smt. Santosh in connivance with other petitioners and her parents-in-law (non-applicants) had made a call on Women Helpline telephone number again levelling false allegations against Surat Singh. As per the prosecution case, Surat Singh could not bear the pressure as also dishonour heaped on him by the petitioners and non-applicants Ram Bhagat and his wife Smt. Roshni. It is claimed by the investigating agency that great pressure was mounted on Surat Singh who was compelled to end his life by hanging himself. It is averred that he was harassed and abetment to commit suicide, interalia, was made by the petitioners. 5. The petitioners have sought bail, claiming, that there was neither any abetment made by them nor there were any circumstance created by the petitioners for Surat Singh to commit suicide. It was claimed by petitioner Vinod that he was not even resident of the village where his sister Ms.Santosh is married. Other petitioners have claimed that suicide by Surat Singh by no means can be connected with the petitioners. 6. It was claimed by petitioner Vinod that he was not even resident of the village where his sister Ms.Santosh is married. Other petitioners have claimed that suicide by Surat Singh by no means can be connected with the petitioners. 6. During the course of hearing, on perusal of paper-books, it has been found that during the course of investigations, allegations levelled by Smt. Santosh against the deceased in connivance with his co-petitioners and all other non-applicants i.e. parents-in-law, were found to be false. Allegations against the deceased in short were that he was usually following Smt.Santosh and in addition to passing lewd remarks, used to urinate in her presence to embarrass her. During the investigations, it was found that Smt.Santosh had wrongly complained against the deceased and her version of passing of lewd remarks etc. by Surat Singh was found to be false. Though non-applicants Ram Bhagat and his wife Roshni (parents of petitioner Sanjay) were found to be innocent, complicity of petitioners in commission of the suicide by Surat Singh was found. 7. When investigations proceeded further, it was found that the petitioners were being harboured by non-applicants Rajesh and Ved Parkash of parental village Malar of petitioner Smt. Santosh and accordingly Section 216 IPC was added in the case. Accused Rajesh and Ved Parkash were arrested during the investigations on 12.2.2014. 8. The parties are close neighbourers. Even after registration of FIR against them and their allegations against the deceased of passing of lewd remarks against Smt. Santosh which were found to be false during investigations, representation has been made by petitioner Smt.Santosh on 17.12.2013 to Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani reiterating her earlier allegations of passing of lewd remarks etc. by the deceased. There is assertion from the investigating agency that petitioners have been correctly named in the FIR but they are playing truant with law. It is claimed that their custodial interrogation is required for effective investigations of the case. 9. Counsel for the petitioners making reference to Jagdeep Kaur Versus State of Punjab, [2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2728 : 2013(2) Marriage L.J. 237 (P&H)] : 2013(4)R.C.R.(Criminal) 1013 and Gurjant Singh and others Versus State of Punjab, [2013(1) Law Herald (P&H) 683] : 2013(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 515 has claimed that it is not a case of abetment by the petitioners, for the deceased to commit suicide. 10. 10. Relying on Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Versus State of M.P., (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371, it is claimed by the petitioners that even when in the cited authority the accused had told the deceased (to go and die), and the deceased was found dead two days later, it was held that there was no direct nexus between the quarrel and the subsequent suicide by the deceased two days later. 11. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that 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 doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The word ‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the word uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. 12. In Mahendra Singh Versus State of of M.P. 1995, SCC(Crl.) 1157, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the definition of ‘abetment’ under Section 107 IPC found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment of the deceased. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be a moot point for the trial Court to determine as to whether the alleged act of omission or commission on the part of the petitioners/accused was instigation for the deceased to commit suicide or it was merely ‘harassment’ and whether the prosecution is able to prove all the ingredients. Furthermore, application of Sections 147 and 149 IPC in the peculiar facts of the case will also be a debatable issue. 13. Facts of the case further reveal that no recovery is required to be made from the petitioners, therefore, their custodial interrogation is not warranted. 14. Furthermore, application of Sections 147 and 149 IPC in the peculiar facts of the case will also be a debatable issue. 13. Facts of the case further reveal that no recovery is required to be made from the petitioners, therefore, their custodial interrogation is not warranted. 14. Keeping in view the discussion aforesaid, however, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice either of the parties, these petitions are allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioners would be released on bail to the satisfaction of the investigating/arresting officer. They shall, however, join the investigation as and when called for and fully cooperate with the investigating agency. They shall also comply with the provisions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.