Judgment : Petition for bail. 2. Now, offence under Section 306 of IPC. 3. Since the petition is not pressed for 1st petitioner, now, the petition is confined to 2nd petitioner only. 4. Heard both sides. 5. According to the learned Senior Counsel for 2nd petitioner, since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition, there is change of circumstances. Further, taking the allegations as such it would not warrant an offence under Section 306 IPC. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for R-2 submitted that A-2 is alleged to have told the deceased that she should go and die for having kept a mobile phone during class hours. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it will not amount to instigation for the purpose of Section 306 IPC. In this respect, the learned Senior Counsel cited SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR vs. STATE OF M.P. [(2002) (5) SCC 371]. 7. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in such circumstances, persons engaged with the task of enforcing the Code of Conduct sometimes used to be provoked make such causal remarks and that is not sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC as against them. In this respect, the learned Senior Counsel cited SWAMY PRAHALADDAS vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [1995 SUPP (3) SCC 438]. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that now the statement of witnesses have been recorded. 2nd petitioner is in jail for a considerable period. She has no mens rea to drive the victim to commit suicide. 2nd petitioner is a Lab Technician. She is an unmarried girl. Now, her future is at stake. Some marriage alliance also come for her. She has no bad antecedents. She has fixed place of residence. She will not evade. She will co-operate with the Investigating Officer. 9. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the decisions cited are distinguishable on facts. Statement of two co-students have been recorded. A-2, who is placed in a responsible position dealing with students has not properly handled that student's matter. Her inept handling is the immediate cause for the defacto complainant losing his daughter. 10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the case diary and the decisions cited. 11. This is her 2nd bail petition. A-2, who is placed in a responsible position dealing with students has not properly handled that student's matter. Her inept handling is the immediate cause for the defacto complainant losing his daughter. 10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the case diary and the decisions cited. 11. This is her 2nd bail petition. Perceptible change of circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition would be a relevant factor. In the 2nd bail petition, the very same matter may be approached from a different angle. Some vital aspects which ought to have been mentioned in the Court with earlier petitions not projected, subsequently projected may also be considered. 12. Divya was studying I year B.E. in an Engineering College run by Vel Tech Educational Institutions. Her father is Srinivasan. The College is having a women's Hostel. A-1 and A-2 are Warden and Assistant Warden respectively. On 18.03.2014, Divya was found with a Cell Phone. It was seized from her. 13. Sometimes, Cell Phones have become a very big nuisance. It can be used for good things. Police is using it for catching the criminals. Many criminals are tracked down by using the Cell Phone. Sometimes the Cell Phones are misused. Criminals are using the Cell Phones as a tool to commit crimes. 14. Because of the pressure by their sons and daughters, the parents are forced to give their Cell Phones. Parents know that doors of danger are opened. But, they are helpless. Cell Phones are like explosives in the hands of the students. They are like highly flammable torches in their hands. Students spent much time in using Cell Phones, wasting their valuable times. Ultimately poor results are coming. Whether it is a rich man's children or poor man's children, this is a common phenomenon. 15. Students are prone to violent behaviours also. Now, they could use this modern gadget for many useful things, for their academic purpose for contacting their parents and brothers for passing urgent messages. There is no wrong in it. To safeguard their future some times strict disciplinary action are need to be taken. 16. Under the present scenario, Vel Tech Educational Institution banned the use of Cell Phones by the students during certain time. It is a Code of Conduct. When classes are going on the cell phone ringing sound should not disturb both the lecturers and students. To safeguard their future some times strict disciplinary action are need to be taken. 16. Under the present scenario, Vel Tech Educational Institution banned the use of Cell Phones by the students during certain time. It is a Code of Conduct. When classes are going on the cell phone ringing sound should not disturb both the lecturers and students. When students violate this they used to seize the Cell Phones. Vel Tech Institution enforced such a discipline. Everyone, every parent should welcome it. 17. Under these circumstances, Divya was found with a Cell Phone on 18.03.2014. It was seized by the Warden. On the next day morning, she demanded it back. It was not given. She is an hosteler. All went to College except Divya. She bolted the door and committed suicide. Initially, a case of suspicious death was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Her father Srinivasan came, shouted and wailed. The Investigating Officer recorded his statement and also of Ishwarya and Neeveditha, two co-students of Divya. The Investigating Officer altered Section of 174 Cr.P.C to Section 306 IPC. In this connection, 2nd petitioner was arrested and remanded on 20.03.2014. Since then she is in jail. 18. In SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR vs. STATE OF M.P. [(2002) (5) SCC 371], on 25.07.1998 the victim was scolded by this accused to ''go and die''. On 27.07.1998, the victim committed suicide. The accused has been booked for an offence under Section 306 IPC. In this set up of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the phrase 'abetment' under Section 306 IPC in the light of Section 107 IPC and held that it cannot be considered as instigation. But, it was held so because the alleged words were made on 25.07.1998, thereafter, after two days, the victim committed suicide in between there was lot of time in the nature of cooling of period for the words spoken to have an effect on the victim. But in our case, immediately on 19.03.2014, after few hours, the victim had gone to her room and committed suicide. 19. Thus, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) SANJU @ SANJAY (supra) distinguishable on the facts of the case before us. 20. SWAMY PRAHALADDAS Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [1995 SUPP (3) SCC 438] two men fought for a lady. She had two paramours. On a morning, all the three had tea. 19. Thus, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) SANJU @ SANJAY (supra) distinguishable on the facts of the case before us. 20. SWAMY PRAHALADDAS Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [1995 SUPP (3) SCC 438] two men fought for a lady. She had two paramours. On a morning, all the three had tea. In the course of a talk, one paramour told the other paramour to 'go and die'. He committed suicide. The accused was proceeded with under Section 306 IPC. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the backdrop of the matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that such casual remarks made in the course of day-to-day life would not warrant an offence under Section 306 IPC. 21. But in the case before us, the petitioner who is the Warden is in the position of a mother, sister, guardian towards the students and she should know the sensitiveness involved. She must be very careful. The students do not mind whether it is Warden or professor. They are highly sensitive in nature. They must be handled with much care and caution. In the circumstances, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) the words uttered by A-2 cannot be termed as mere casual remarks. Thus, PRAHALADDA (supra) is also distinguishable on facts of the case before us. 22. Now, the point is whether any perceptible change of circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition. 2nd petitioner has been arrested and remanded on 20.03.2014. Two hostlers gave statement. Now that cannot be tampered with. 2nd petitioner is a Lab Technician. She is not a mighty person, who can pose a challenge to the law enforcing authorities. She is in jail for a considerable period. No one could be heard to say that A-2 has intended to cause the death of the student. There is change of circumstances. 23. College Management appoints Lecturers. They did not instruct them to handle the students in this fashion. Today, this has happened to Srinivasan's daughter. If not properly handled, it may happen to many parents. Wardens of College Hostels are in a parental position. They must know the sensitiveness involved in it. 24. Now, for each and everything students started questioning. It is a good sign of development. But, sometimes it is also bad for their future. The student community must be handled very carefully. If not properly handled, it may happen to many parents. Wardens of College Hostels are in a parental position. They must know the sensitiveness involved in it. 24. Now, for each and everything students started questioning. It is a good sign of development. But, sometimes it is also bad for their future. The student community must be handled very carefully. 25. Justice Isaac of the Australian Federal Court once compared the job of a teacher to a circus trainer, because in the circus monkeys and wild animals are brought in an uncontrollable stage and by training and tactful handling they were turned/trained/tuned to dance to the dictates of the circus trainer and they became tamed and made mild. If the animals are not properly handled, they will bite the circus charmer 'Such is the onerous position and responsibility of a teacher'. This has been referred to by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R.Krishna Iyyer in the Celeberated Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Rajappa. These remarks in a foreign Judgment, though not binding on us but have persuasive value. The Australian view as to the role and responsibility of teachers equally applies to us also. 26. All the College Managements and University authorities must aware of their responsibility in this regard. There is no wrong in introducing a reasonable standard of Code of Conduct among the students to shape their future for any mistake among them the College Management is also answerable. The College Management must strengthen Teacher – Student relationship. Professors, Teachers and Wardens of the Hostels must be educated on facts and techniques to be adopted in maintaining the discipline among the students and also in enforcing the Code of Conduct intended to safe guard their future and welfare. The olden days Gurukulam, Guru – Sishya relationship has now faded away. Now a days students are vibrant, belligerent, combative in nature. They are easily provoked even on the mere drop of a hat. 27. So, the College Managements must handle them with much care and caution and instruct their Professors accordingly. For the Professor's manhandling, mishandling, inept dealing with the students the College Managements are also put to shame and at times their fame is also at stake. So, College Managements should have an eye on the students both day scholars and the hostelers. 28. For the Professor's manhandling, mishandling, inept dealing with the students the College Managements are also put to shame and at times their fame is also at stake. So, College Managements should have an eye on the students both day scholars and the hostelers. 28. (i) Bail granted to the 2nd petitioner, namely, Kousika; (ii) Two sureties, who shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur; (iii) She shall appear before the respondent police on every Monday and Friday at 10.30a.m. for two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.