ORDER : B.N. KARIA, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval appears and waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State and Ms. Archana R. Acharya appears and waives service for and on behalf of the complainant. With the consent of the respective sides, the matter was heard finally on 11th and 18th day of November 2016. 2. This Application is preferred by the applicant-original accused no. 2 in FIR, being I-C.R. No. 76 of 2016 registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad for grant of regular bail in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC” for brevity]. 3. Brief facts, as narrated in the FIR are that in the night of 25th September 2016 at around 12:00 am, the complainant received a phone call from a Police Constable informing him that his son had committed suicide, and therefore, the complainant informed his friend Manmeetsingh Chabra to immediately reach at the place where his son had committed suicide. It is the say of the complainant that his son was residing with other 4 to 5 boys in a flat at Binori Sonnet Society since last two months and was working at Evolutionary Systems Private Limited, a company situated at Makarba, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the complainant and his other relatives came to Ahmedabad on 26th September 2016 where they found deceased hanging in one of the bedrooms of Binori Sonnet Apartments. The one end of the deceased turban cloth was tied with fan hook and the second end of the cloth was tied to the deceased's neck and his dead body was found hanging. The police standing nearby shown them a spiral bound lying besides the dead body and on one page of that spiral bound with a blue colour marker pen, it was written “call Mum 9377156369 : Papa 9898177760.” Upon identifying the handwriting by the complainant, it was found that the same was not written by the deceased, as his son never written a sentence using all capital letters. The complainant when looked around, saw legs of his son touching the floor of the room, as if he was standing and the dead body was slightly bent on the bed, which was besides the body. The complainant when looked around, saw legs of his son touching the floor of the room, as if he was standing and the dead body was slightly bent on the bed, which was besides the body. The deceased T-shirt was worn wrong way and also after noticing these two things, complainant immediately came outside the room and informed the Police to interrogate the boys staying with the complainant's son. The complainant also brought to the notice of the Police that his son had previously complained him about his fellow habitants forcibly trying to feed him non vegetarian food and alcohol. It is also averred in the complaint that these room-mates were abusing his son and making fun of the deceased religion. Whenever the complainant spoke to the deceased over phone, the complainant always asked him as to how was the situation over there now, to which his son avoided to talk about them and told the complainant that he would change the room as soon as possible and further informed the complainant that whenever the deceased was sleeping at night at that time, these boys used drag down his pant and undergarments and thereby harass him. This incident was also disclosed by the deceased to his mother some three four days back when he visited his parents at Surat. The deceased had also informed the complainant that one new boy had come to stay at their Flat and he too has joined the band of other boys in forcing the deceased to eat non vegetarian food, even knowing that the deceased do not eat such food. In this way, as per the complainant, these room-mates had caused immense harassment to his son, who was to change his room by the next month, however, due to persistent harassment, he committed suicide, and hence, the complaint. 4. When this matter was called out for hearing on 26th October 2016, learned APP Mr. R.C Kodekar appearing for the State requested this Court to adjourn the matter as the post-mortem report was yet to be received by the investigating agency and the line of investigation was also not certain, and therefore, this case was adjourned 28th October 2016 with a direction to registry to accept vakalatnama of learned advocate Ms. Archana Acharya who appears for and on behalf of the complainant. Archana Acharya who appears for and on behalf of the complainant. On 11th November 2016, on a request being made by learned APP, this case was further adjourned to 18th November 2016. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhadresh S. Raju for the applicant, learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval for the respondent-State and Ms. Archana Acharya, learned advocate for the respondent-complainant. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Bhadresh S. Raju vehemently submitted that the applicant has been wrongly arraigned as an accused in the offence by the Police. That, no offence is committed by the present applicant. That, on the basis of conjuncture and surmises, name of the present applicant has been added in the FIR just to harass him, which itself shows mala-fide intention and ulterior motive of the Investigating Officer to rope him in the offence which has not been committed by him. That, the Investigating Officer has completely overlooked the facts and has created an unbelievable story of the incident of abatement of suicide. That, the applicant is recently selected for a job as an Assistant Manager in the Vaccine Department of Zydus Cadila, Ahmedabad. That, he had booked tickets on 22nd August 2016 from Coimbatore to Bangalore and Bangalore to Ahmedabad, and therefore, the applicant herein reached Ahmedabad only on 30th August 2016. That, on his arrival, the applicant booked Zydus Guest House at Chagodar, Ahmedabad from 31st August 2016 to 6th September 2016 and thereafter extended his stay at the said guest house till 8th September 2016. That, the applicant moved to a residence at Bavla with two of his colleagues already staying there and stayed at that place till 17th September 2016. That, due to commutation difficulties being faced by the applicant, he shifted at Binori Sonnet-2 BHK on 18th September 2016 where he found one Nishant [deceased]; Swapnil and one another body already staying there, since one boy was to move to some other place and therefore in his place, the applicant herein had moved to that apartment, but the said boy did not move out on the same day, and therefore, the applicant herein had to sleep in the main lounge of the flat till 25th September 2016. That, the allegations made in FIR are improbable and unbelievable since the applicant had started living with the room-mates at the said flat just before a week from the date of the offence. That, the allegations made in FIR are improbable and unbelievable since the applicant had started living with the room-mates at the said flat just before a week from the date of the offence. There was no abetment on the part of the applicant in committing suicide by the deceased. That, the allegations made against the applicant and other co-accused in respect of using force to the deceased to consume alcohol and eat non vegetarian food is incorrect since the applicant herein has been in search of a bride since long and in a matrimonial website it has been specifically mentioned by the applicant that he never drinks or smokes, and therefore, it is highly improbable and unbelievable that the applicant had used any force upon the deceased. That, the applicant is a well educated serving on good job in a reputed organization and it is highly unsustainable to rope him in a false complaint particularly when he had visited for the second time after his interview. That, he was not present at the flat when the deceased committed suicide and there is no single eye witness who has seen the said incident. That, the remand was also sought by the investigating agency, but nothing was found against the present applicant. That, there is no iota of evidence against the present applicant and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail, since he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr. Bhadresh Raju placed reliance upon a decision of Apex Court rendered in case of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2011 (1) SC 99 and ultimately urged this Court to consider the application for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Per contra learned APP Mr. KP Raval appearing for the respondent-State strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and urged this Court to disallow this application since the investigation is in progress. He pointed out that in all four accused are involved in the offence and out of them, only two are arrest and other two accused persons are absconding. That, on the day of the incident, deceased had forwarded an e-mail to his superior authority. He pointed out that in all four accused are involved in the offence and out of them, only two are arrest and other two accused persons are absconding. That, on the day of the incident, deceased had forwarded an e-mail to his superior authority. That, post mortem report is now available with the prosecution and as per the report, the cause of death is shown due to hanging. That, the deceased was going to change his residence, as per the talk he had with his father. That, the investigating agency has recorded statements of witnesses from which transpires that the present applicant was applying force to the deceased to consume alcohol and eat non vegetarian food, and therefore, the deceased was under duress and committed suicide. That, from the record it transpires that there is a prima facie case against the applicant of abetting suicide, and hence, it was requested by learned APP to dismiss the present application. 8. Extending support to the arguments made for and on behalf of the respondent-State, learned advocate Ms. Archana Acharya vehemently submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge [Special], Ahmedabad [Rural] in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1947 of 2016 has rightly rejected the plea for grant of bail to the applicant vide Order dated 17th October 2016. That, the line of investigation was not certain till the receipt of post mortem report and that now the investigation has been handed over to S.O.G, Ahmedabad. That, the name of accused viz., Swapnil and Ravindra Ganesh is shown by the complainant and there is no delay in lodging the complaint by the father of the deceased, as the incident took place on 25th September 2016 and the complaint was lodge on 1st October 2016. She pointed out to the Court that the deceased was a Gold Medalist. He completed his studies of Chartered Accountant in the month of October 2014 and has been issued a Certificate of Membership by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in the month of November 2014. That, after completion of his studies, the deceased started his practice as a Chartered Accountant. That, recently on 7th April 2016, one Evolutionary Systems Private Limited, Ahmedabad issued a letter offering appointment to the deceased on the post of Associate Consultant Functional - Grade A in the said company on a salary of Rs.5,50,008/- per annum. That, after completion of his studies, the deceased started his practice as a Chartered Accountant. That, recently on 7th April 2016, one Evolutionary Systems Private Limited, Ahmedabad issued a letter offering appointment to the deceased on the post of Associate Consultant Functional - Grade A in the said company on a salary of Rs.5,50,008/- per annum. That, due to his appointment in a firm at Ahmedabad, the deceased shifted initially as a Paying Guest at Makarba for about 5-6 months and just before one and a half month to two months prior to the date of the incident, he shifted to a Flat No. E/201, Binori Sonnet Apartments, Near Government Tube-well, Bopal, Ahmedabad and stayed alongwith the applicant and others. She submitted that the applicant and two-three other room-mates used to frequently harass and pressurize the deceased to eat non vegetarian meals and to consume liquor, though the deceased resisted against the said act, the applicant and other accused were also removing his clothes forcefully when he slept in the night. These repetitive acts of insult are sufficient to drive any one to commit suicide, and therefore, the deceased appears to have committed suicide on 25th September 2016. That, no finger print was found on the marker pen, knob of the door from inner side of the room, and therefore, it become suspicious when no stopper is applied inside the room. That, the dead body of the deceased was not hanging in air, but it was standing bent from the knee as if the body is taking the support of the side of bed kept in front of it, and these circumstances call for a detailed investigation. Apart from these facts, the spectacles, turban and beard dress up were intact on the body even after hanging, which also raises suspicion. Moreover, the collars of T-shirt were totally tough inside the T-Shirt neck as if the accused wanted the clear neck area to tie the knot with neck. Ms. Acharya also pointed out to this Court that in an e-mail sent by the accused to his organization on 25th September 2016 at 6:55 pm it has been stated that the project assigned to the deceased was ready and that he will start working on it from Monday. Ms. Acharya also pointed out to this Court that in an e-mail sent by the accused to his organization on 25th September 2016 at 6:55 pm it has been stated that the project assigned to the deceased was ready and that he will start working on it from Monday. According to her, this e-mail communication itself is clear that the deceased wanted to live and was making future plans for the next working day. She, therefore, urged this court to reject the application moved by the present applicant since the investigation is in progress and two other room-mates are yet to be arrested and interrogated by the investigating agency. 9. This Court has cautiously analyzed the rival contentions and material available on the record. Before dealing with the plea raised by the applicant, this Court would like to refer to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 , wherein it has been held in para 11 as follow: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: [a] The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supping evidence. [b] Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. [c] Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.” 10. The crux of the charge against the applicant-original accused no. 2 in the FIR is that he had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased - son of the complainant on 25th September 2016. [c] Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.” 10. The crux of the charge against the applicant-original accused no. 2 in the FIR is that he had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased - son of the complainant on 25th September 2016. As contained in the complaint, the deceased had informed his father-complainant that one new boy had come to stay with him at their flat and he is also forcing him to consume liquor and eat non vegetarian food some three-four days of the incident. The facts of the case would require consideration. It appears from the record that applicant was selected as an Assistant Manager in the Vaccine Department of Zydus Cadila, Ahmedabad w.e.f 31st August 2016. He had booked his tickets on 22nd August 2016 from Coimbatore to Bangalore and Bangalore to Ahmedabad and reached Ahmedabad on 30th August 2016 and on his arrival, the applicant booked Zydus Guest House at Chagodar, Ahmedabad from 31st August 2016 to 6th September 2016 and thereafter extended his stay in the said guest house till 8th September 2016. He moved at a residence in Bavla with two of his colleagues already staying there and stayed at that place till 17th September 2016. However, due to commutation difficulties from Bavla to Ahmedabad, he shifted at Binori Sonnet-2 BHK on 18th September 2016 where the applicant found one Nishant [deceased]; Swapnil and one another boy already staying there, since one boy was to move to some other place and therefore in his place, the applicant herein had moved to that apartment, but the said boy did not move out on the same day, and therefore, the applicant slept in the main lounge of the flat till 25th September 2016. From the police papers, not a single eye witness is available to the incident. Two days after the incident, the applicant was apprehended and remand was sought, however, nothing could be found against the present applicant. Father/ complainant received a message of his son's suicide at 12:00 pm from a phone call made by a Police constable and therefore, he alongwith other relatives rushed from Surat to Ahmedabad in private vehicles and reached at the place of the residence where deceased was staying, however, it appears that the FIR was filed before the Police five days after the incident, which creates a strong doubt. Moreover, from the record, no adverse evidence is available against the present applicant to involve him in the offence. This matter was initially taken up for hearing on 26th October 2016, however, upon a request being made by learned APP Mr. R.C. Kodekar appearing for the State, it was adjourned to 28th October 2016 and subsequently on 18th November 2016. Now, the post mortem report is available which shows the cause of death due to hanging. Investigation is under progress and as urged by the learned APP, till the investigation is over, let the present applicant be not considered for bail as yet the line of investigation is not fixed by the Police. This cannot be considered to be a ground to deny bail to the present applicant. Applicant has produced a letter of interview/discussion with the selection committee issued by Zydus Cadila dated 31st August 2016 and his pay-slip, etc., which supports the case of the applicant of his stay in the State. The authority relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant in case of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Supra] clearly depicts that, “the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 of IPC.” Therefore, mere force or asking the deceased to consume alcohol or eat non vegetarian food would not be sufficient aid or instigation to abet the deceased to commit suicide. 11. Consequently, for the reasons aforestated, this Application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 11. Consequently, for the reasons aforestated, this Application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The applicant is hereby ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR, being I-C.R. No. 76 of 2016 registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad on his executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only] with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and subject to the conditions that he shall: [a] not take undue advantage of his liberty or misuse the liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender his passport; if any, to the lower Court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] mark presence at the concerned Police Station on every alternate Sunday for a period of six months and thereafter on any day of each English Calender month till the trial is over; [f] furnish the present residential address to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court; 12. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 13. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court which are of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage, while enlarging the applicant on bail. 14. Rule nisi made absolute to the aforestated extent. Direct service is permitted.