Judgment Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail and emanating from the record, as claimed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for brevity “the CBI”), is that petitioner Om Parkash Jain was a Cabinet Minister in Haryana Government, whereas his coaccused Zile Ram Sharma was the Member of Legislative Assembly, Haryana. On 24.7.2010, Karam Singh (deceased) son of Kashi Ram, was stated to have approached one Sanjay Jain, resident of village Gharaunda, in connection with the job of Clerk of his relative Sandeep son of Chamel Singh, in the Rest House, Karnal. Sanjay Jain advised him to meet the petitioner and he will telephonically inform him in this regard. Thereafter, Karam Singh had gone to Panipat and contacted Rajinder Sharma, his PA in the absence of the petitioner. As advised by Atul Jain, son of the petitioner, he (Karam Singh) again went to Panipat on the following day and had apprised the petitioner in regard to the pointed job of Sandeep. He (petitioner) handed over the relevant papers to his PA Rajinder Sharma for necessary action. Subsequently, Rajinder Sharma, PA had asked him that he had to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs for getting the job to his relative Sandeep. Karam Singh had informed the father of Sandeep in this respect. He agreed & gave a sum of Rs.4,50,000/to him (Karam Singh). He gave the pointed amount to Rajinder Sharma, PA of the petitioner for the purpose of getting job to his relative Sandeep. 2. Sequelly, it was claimed that complainant Rajinder son of Karam Singh (deceased) (for short “the complainant”) had also applied for the post of Conductor in Haryana Roadways. In the same sequence, Rajinder Sharma, PA of the petitioner had asked him to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/for his job, but the matter was settled for a sum of Rs.6 lacs in two instalments. Karam Singh was stated to have paid another sum of Rs.3 lacs to Rajinder Sharma, PA of the petitioner. Neither, since Sandeep, relative nor Rajinder, son of Karam Singh (deceased) actually got the job, so, Karam Singh asked the PA of petitioner to return, but the indicated amount was not returned to him. Karam Singh was stated to have paid another sum of Rs.3 lacs to Rajinder Sharma, PA of the petitioner. Neither, since Sandeep, relative nor Rajinder, son of Karam Singh (deceased) actually got the job, so, Karam Singh asked the PA of petitioner to return, but the indicated amount was not returned to him. Consequently, he moved the complaint dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P4) to SSP Panipat in this regard. Similar applications were also moved to Deputy Commissioner and other higher authorities. 3. Likewise, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 7.6.2011, Karam Singh was lying in an injured condition with froth coming out of his mouth, near the ground adjacent to National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal. Subsequently, Karam Singh died. Suspecting the murder of his father, initially, complainant Rajinder has lodged a criminal case against the accused, vide FIR No.439 dated 7.6.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 302, 201 and 323 read with section 34 IPC in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. However, the complainant did not feel satisfied with the investigation carried out by the Haryana police and in the wake of CWP, bearing No.23980 of 2011 filed by him, the investigation of the case was transferred to CBI by this Court. During the course of investigation, the CBI concluded and rejected the theory of murder of Karam Singh, as projected by the complainant and came to a definite conclusion that the accused had not murdered the father of the complainant. In fact, he (Karam Singh) had committed suicide by consuming aluminium phosphate and the accused had abetted the commission of crime of suicide. In the background of these allegations, the CBI has registered and investigated a fresh criminal case against the petitioner and his other coaccused, namely, Zile Ram Sharma, MLA & Rajinder Sharma PA, for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. The petitioner fully cooperated with the investigation and the CBI did not arrest him at any stage. After completion of the investigation, the CBI submitted the final police report (challan) (Annexure P2) against the accused in the manner depicted hereinabove. They were accordingly charge sheeted for committing an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, by way of charge sheet (Annexure P3) by the trial Court. 4. After completion of the investigation, the CBI submitted the final police report (challan) (Annexure P2) against the accused in the manner depicted hereinabove. They were accordingly charge sheeted for committing an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, by way of charge sheet (Annexure P3) by the trial Court. 4. Having exercised his right of bail and remained unsuccessful before the Special Judge (CBI), now the petitioner has preferred the instant petition for regular bail in the present criminal case in this Court, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter. 5. At the very outset, the learned Senior counsel has, inter alia, contended with some amount of vehemence that the CBI did not feel the necessity of arresting the petitioner during investigation. The initial story of murder propounded by the complainant was found to be false. On the contrary, according to the CBI, the petitioner has neither managed the jobs to complainant and Sandeep son of Chamel Singh nor returned the amount to the deceased taken for the purpose. Hence, Karam Singh committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of crime. The argument is that the deceased was acting as a conduit/agent and was illegally collecting money from the persons on a false promise of providing them the jobs and no offence punishable u/s 306 IPC is made out against the petitioner. According to learned Senior counsel, there are more than 160 prosecution witnesses to be examined, numerous documents are to be proved by the CBI and final conclusion of trial will take a long time. All the material witnesses belong to the family of the complainant or employees of the deceased. Raising a variety of arguments, in all, it was contended that assuming for the sake of argument, if the allegations leveled by the CBI are taken to be true as such on their face value, even then, no offence punishable u/s 306 IPC is made out and since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case & is in custody since 21.9.2013, so, he is entitled to the concession of bail. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 190; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 628; Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 750; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2001 (9) SCC 618 and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC 605 . 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant has vehemently urged that although, it is a case of murder, but the investigation conducted by the CBI is tainted as it has only registered a case u/s 306 IPC and helped the accused in this regard. However, he has opposed the bail application. 7. Faced with the situation, controverting the contention of learned counsel for complainant and reiterating the investigation, the learned counsel for CBI has forcefully submitted that, as the deceased had committed suicide on account of conduct/non-return of the amount by the accused, therefore, he is guilty for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, for which, they were duly charge sheeted by the trial Court. The argument is that since the possibility of exerting pressure/influence on the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner, cannot be ruled out, so, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 9. At the very outset, it may be added that Hon'ble Apex Court in case Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898, has reiterated the parameters for the grant of regular bail. 9. At the very outset, it may be added that Hon'ble Apex Court in case Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898, has reiterated the parameters for the grant of regular bail. Interalia, some of these are that (i) the basic rule is a bail and committal to jail is an exception; (ii) refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (iii) the discretion of grant of bail or otherwise has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general; (iv) the fact that the accused was arrested in an offence of serious nature should not deter the court from enlarging the accused on bail when there is no serious contention that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence; (v) if the charge has already been framed, the trial is likely to take a long time, then bail should be granted to the accused and (vi) personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and not otherwise. 10. As indicated hereinabove, the petitioner and his coaccused were charge sheeted for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, which postulates that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished therein.” The abetment of a thing has been defined u/s 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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 intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 11. Similarly, section 108 IPC posits that a person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. 11. Similarly, section 108 IPC posits that a person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. The criminal conspiracy has been defined in section 120A IPC. 12. Meaning thereby, in order to attract the penal provisions of section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea, active participation or direct act and intention to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act by the accused, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a grave position that he committed suicide. The knowledge, intention, mens rea, positive active participation leaving no option and compelling a person to commit suicide, interalia, are the essential ingredients to involve a person u/s 306 IPC. 13. Such thus being the legal position and material on record, now the short & significant question, though important, which invites an immediate attention of this court and arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail or not ? 14. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative, for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow. 15. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the petitioner during the course of investigation at any stage. He himself surrendered, after submission of the final police report (challan) (Annexure P2) by the CBI in the trial Court. 16. As is evident from the record that the initial theory of murder of his father as projected by the complainant was found to be totally false and negated and the CBI came to a definite conclusion that the accused had not murdered the father of complainant. In fact, Karam Singh committed suicide by consuming Aluminium Phosphate and the accused had abetted the commission of crime of suicide. Having completed the investigation and all the codal formalities, the CBI submitted the final police report (challan) (Annexure P2). In fact, Karam Singh committed suicide by consuming Aluminium Phosphate and the accused had abetted the commission of crime of suicide. Having completed the investigation and all the codal formalities, the CBI submitted the final police report (challan) (Annexure P2). The accused were accordingly charge sheeted for committing an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC in the following manner, by means of charge sheet (Annexure P3) by the trial Court : “That on 7.6.2011, near Christian Cemetery in front of main gate of Model Diary Plant, NDRI, Karnal, Haryana, Sh.Karam Singh s/o Late Kashi Ram, r/o village Kambopura, Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal, Haryana (ExSarpanch of village Kambopura) committed suicide, you both Om Parkash Jain and Rajinder Sharma abetted the commission by taking Rs.4.5 lacs and Rs.3 lacs as advance from Karam Singh, deceased for the selection of Sandeep s/o Chamel Singh r/o village Madlauda, District Panipat, Haryana as Clerk in the department of Haryana Government and for the selection of Rajinder s/o Karam Singh, deceased as Conductor in Haryana Roadways, respectively, and Sandeep and Rajinder could not be selected as Clerk and Conductor, respectively, as promised by both of you. You both refused to return Rs.4.5 lacs and Rs.3 lacs to deceased Karam Singh despite his strenuous efforts. You both, prior to suicide by Karam Singh, caused grave mental harassment and agony to Karam Singh and thereby abetted the commission of offence punishable u/s 306 IPC and within the cognizance of the court.” 17. Indisputably, the complainant has neither filed any appropriate private complaint u/s 302 IPC against the accused nor complained to higher authorities against the tainted investigation of CBI nor challenged the order of framing charge (Annexure P3) u/s 306 IPC in this Court. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith and the complainant cannot be heard to now contend at this stage that the investigation conducted by the CBI was tainted, as contrary urged on his behalf. 18. Sequelly, the crux of the main allegations pressed into service by the CBI in this regard is that petitioner has neither managed the jobs to complainant and Sandeep son of Chamel Singh nor returned the amount of Rs.4.5 lacs plus Rs.3 lacs to the deceased, which were stated to have been paid by him (deceased) to his PA. 18. Sequelly, the crux of the main allegations pressed into service by the CBI in this regard is that petitioner has neither managed the jobs to complainant and Sandeep son of Chamel Singh nor returned the amount of Rs.4.5 lacs plus Rs.3 lacs to the deceased, which were stated to have been paid by him (deceased) to his PA. It is not a matter of dispute that prima facie, neither there are specific allegations nor any cogent evidence is forth coming on record even to suggest remotely that Karam Singh (deceased) in fact had actually paid the amount to the petitioner or he had refused to return the same. The deceased appears to have collected the amount from Chamel Singh as a conduit/agent to secure the job of his son Sandeep. 19. Not only that, no cogent averments/material are available on record, either in the complaint (Annexure P4), purported to have been made by the deceased on 6.6.2011, to SP Panipat, one day prior to the present occurrence (the authenticity of which is yet to be proved) or in the statements of any relevant witnesses. It cannot possibly be denied that in order to involve the petitioner in the commission of the instant crime, the CBI has pressed into service the statements of complainant PW Rajinder, his wife Suman, mother Raj Bala, brother Narender and his wife Rekha Rani, but, to my mind, the same would not come to the rescue of the prosecution, as they have not so specifically stated that the petitioner had actually received or refused to return the amount and the deceased was under pressure, tension and upset from such refusal and he was so compelled to commit suicide. Particularly, when the case of the CBI from the very beginning is that the entire amount in question was paid by Karam Singh (deceased) to Rajinder Sharma PA of the petitioner and not personally to the petitioner. Therefore, as to whether all the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide are complete and whether the penal provisions of section 306 IPC are attracted to the facts of the present case against the petitioner or not, in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the indicated judgments, interalia, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Meaning thereby, it remained an unfolded mystery as to how, when and in what manner, the petitioner has abetted the commission of crime of suicide by Karam Singh. 20. Similarly, another feeble argument that in case, the petitioner is granted the concession of bail, then, he will try to tamper with the evidence, lacks merit as well. As all the material witnesses belong to the family of complainant or employees of the deceased, therefore, the question of putting pressure on them by the petitioner did not arise at all, as contrary urged on behalf of the respondents. 21. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. There are more than 160 prosecution witnesses to be examined and numerous documents are to be proved by the CBI in the trial Court. In this manner, the trial will naturally take a long time. Moreover, the petitioner has himself surrendered in the Court on 21.9.2013. Since then, he is in custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous conviction in any other criminal case. Therefore, to me, all the parameters set out/reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) are fully attracted to the facts of the present case, are complete answer to the problem in hand and the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 22. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 23. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing out from the record, as discussed hereinabove and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby accepted. He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to further filing an affidavit to the effect that he will regularly attend the proceedings in the trial Court. He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to further filing an affidavit to the effect that he will regularly attend the proceedings in the trial Court. He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. 24. Needless to mention that nothing observed, hereinabove, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only. At the same time, in case, the petitioner violates any terms and conditions of the order of bail/bail bonds, then, the prosecution/CBI/complainant would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail in this Court.