ORDER A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at C.R. No. I -201 of 2015 with Nilambaug Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offenses punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Pursuant to the 'Rule' issued by this Court, learned APP placed the papers of investigation an Mr. Anand Yagnik, has appeared for the original complainant to oppose the application. 3. Brief facts arise on record are as under: "3.1 Sunitaben wife of Hareshkumar Natvarlal Nirmal lodged an FIR with the above referred Police Station on 17.12.2015 against the four accused including the present applicant alleging that in the month of February, 2015 her husband Hareshkumar became partner in a Company along with other 4 accused for selling some energetic drink. It was alleged that her deceased-husband has borrowed money from his relatives in the tune of Rs. 85 Lacs and the same was invested for the business. It was decided that profit was to be distributed amongst the partners of the company including said Shri Haresbhai. 3.2 It was further alleged that all the partners were asking for some more money and therefore an amount of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- were invested in the Company. 3.3 It was further alleged that though the Company was profit making but the partners were not taking any payments and therefore, her husband was facing huge financial difficulties. When the husband requested to release some money from the partnership firm, all the accused of the company had compelled her husband to accept that he has invested only Rs. 68 Lacs and not Rs. 1,90,00,000/- or Rs. 85,00,000/-. Accordingly, agreement was entered into between the partners and her husband has left the company. Even as per the agreements, cheques were also drawn. 3.4 Since her husband was facing huge financial loss and not getting the amount back as invested by him, he committed suicide on 16.12.2015 by using gun on himself. 3.5 Having come to know about the lodgment of the FIR, applicant preferred an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge being Cr.M.A. No. 22 of 2016 which was dismissed by learned 5th Addl. 3.5 Having come to know about the lodgment of the FIR, applicant preferred an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge being Cr.M.A. No. 22 of 2016 which was dismissed by learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar by his order dated 27.1.2016. Hence, this application." 4. Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya, learned advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that say of the complainant that the applicant invested an amount of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- or Rs. 85 Lacs is not correct fact. It is submitted that since the deceased who is not interested in sharing the partnership entered into written agreement dated 28.7.2015 and by virtue of the said agreement, several post dated cheques were given to the deceased. By taking into consideration the said agreement, which was signed by all the accused, he would submit that dispute is between the partners with regard to the investment made in the business. He would further submit that on the contrary the deceased was using abusive language time and again and therefore, the applicant has given an application on 4.9.2015 to Adajan Police Station making allegations giving details about the threat given by the deceased and his family members and the deceased and his friends. He would further submit that no offence has lodged against under Section 114 of the IPC. Applicant has never compelled the deceased for committing such offence. He would further submit that rest of the partners have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the trial Court and applicant not being released by the Court below, therefore, the present application. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Jhaveri, learned APP would submit that before committing the suicide, deceased has written a suicidal note; wherein, specific allegations have been made. It has been stated that all the partners were not paying the amount and therefore, he was not able to return the money from whom he has borrowed. He has stated that all the partners are responsible for the same for which deceased has committed suicide. She would therefore submit that investigation is at initial stage and therefore, the application for anticipatory bail may not be granted. 6. Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the complainant would submit that complainant filed Special Criminal Application No. 219 of 2016 for several directions. In the said petition, the statement was made that charge sheet would be filed in that case. 6. Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the complainant would submit that complainant filed Special Criminal Application No. 219 of 2016 for several directions. In the said petition, the statement was made that charge sheet would be filed in that case. However, the same has not yet been filed. He would further submit that because of non payment of the profit as well as cheques, the deceased had committed suicide as three cheques given by the present accused stand bounced and therefore, the present application may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. It is undisputed fact that complainant and the deceased had entered into a partnership firm with other 4 persons including the present applicant and started business with regard to distributing energetic drink. It is also not in dispute that on 28.7.2015 all the partners have signed an agreement; wherein, it was decided including the deceased and it was accepted that an amount of Rs. 68 lacs were to be paid to the deceased and accordingly, several cheques were handed over to the deceased. It is also undisputed fact that the application was given by the present applicant in the month of September, 2015 before the concerned police station about harassment by the deceased himself. There were other remedy available to the deceased by filing an appropriate proceeding with regard to cheques were bounced before the appropriate forum. 8. As far as committing suicide is concerned, the relevant provision of section 107, 108 and 306 of the IPC are reproduced herein below. "107- Abetment of a thing:-- A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First- 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 the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 108- Abettor - 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. 108- Abettor - 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. 306- Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, without expressing any opinion and without observing about the applicability of aforesaid sections as well as considering ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at : (1980) 2 SCC 665 , and contrary the fact that similarly situated co-accused have been released on anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 10. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered at C.R. No. I -201 of 2015 with Nilambaug Police Station, Bhavnagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered at C.R. No. I -201 of 2015 with Nilambaug Police Station, Bhavnagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions: "(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall the applicant remain present at concerned Police Station on 22.2.2016 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;" 11. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 12. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.