JUDGMENT : Rahul Chaturvedi, J. 1. Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.V. Mishra and Sri Sachin Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravindra Verma, learned counsel for private opposite party and learned AGA at length and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of Ajay Kumar Mishra, who was the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 131/2018 U/s 354(Gh), 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar. The applicant is suffering incarceration in jail since 04.04.2018 in connection with Case Crime No. 375/2018 U/s 306 I.P.C. P.S. Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Before adjudicating the case on merits, it is imperative to enumerate bare skeletal facts of the case, which are as follows :- (a) The deceased Ashwarya Sharma daughter of Dr. Dinesh Chand Sharma (the informant) was a student in the University, who was pursuing her B.C.A. (IInd year) course. Her classmates namely, Aniket Dixit and Aniket Pandey (coaccused) were pressurizing her to have “friendship” bond, when she out rightly rejected. The rejection of “freindship bond” from a girl infuriated them and thereafter for derision they used to cut obscene, vulgar and derogatory remarks upon her. In addition to it, they also extended threats to kidnap her. Frustrated by the aforesaid misconduct against the named rogues, she made oral as well as written complaint on 31.01.2018 to the concerned disciplinary authorities as well as to the Head of Department of the University, with regard to the incident. The errant named classmates were rebuked by the University authorities. The baffled victim returned to her house and narrated the blatant episode to her parents and unveiled all the facts about the incident and also informed them that the aforesaid named classmates have extended threats for ravishing her physically. Narrating her owes, the poor girl broke up and divulged that she is fed up with these rogues and her life has turned into hell. Upon which, father of the victim on 07.02.2018 lodged FIR for the incident occurred on 31st January, 2018 which was registered as Case Crime No. 131/2018 under sections 354(Gha), 504, 506 I.P.C. and against the aforesaid named students (co-accused) namely, Aniket Dixit and Aniket Pandey, students of BCA-II and BCAIII year respectively. Upon which, father of the victim on 07.02.2018 lodged FIR for the incident occurred on 31st January, 2018 which was registered as Case Crime No. 131/2018 under sections 354(Gha), 504, 506 I.P.C. and against the aforesaid named students (co-accused) namely, Aniket Dixit and Aniket Pandey, students of BCA-II and BCAIII year respectively. (b) Responding to the aforesaid complaint of the victim dated 31.01.2018, the University authorities after holding an enquiry, made certain cosmetic changes by transferring the victim’s class-section to another and by changing the administrative system a bit hither and thither. 4. After lodging of FIR, the present applicant who was subsequent I.O. of the case, prepared IIIrd parcha of case diary. During investigation, the present applicant, for the reasons best known to him, have collected various affidavits from the number of students of University, addressed to S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar. Astoundingly, the language and pattern of all these affidavits are one and same, denying any such incident against the deceased. Besides this, the pro-active applicant has taken a “letter of Truce”, signed by informant (father of deceased), endorsed by the deceased herself, dated 01.04.2018, mentioning therein that as a compromise have been arrived at between the contesting party therefore, they do not want to pursue the above mentioned molestation case. Not only this, the victim also promptly recorded her subsequent statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. on the same day to this effect, withdrawing the criminal case mentioning therein that she does not want to give any statement before Magistrate. After recording all these developments in case diary, the applicant (I.O. of the case) on the same day prepared FINAL REPORT in Case Crime No. 131/2018 and submitted the same on 01.04.2018 itself for its approval by concerned higher authority of the police. 5. It is indeed shocking that on very next date i.e. 02.04.2018 the extremely perturbed victim committed suicide without leaving any suicide note. The proximity of time, in submitting FINAL REPORT by the applicant and commission of suicide by the victim, speaks oceans and volumes about all the previous developments including the alleged “letter of Truce” signed by father of deceased and its alleged endorsement by the poor girl dated 01.04.2018. The FIR of this unfortunate suicide was registered as Case Crime No. 375/2018 U/s 306 I.P.C. at 18.06 hours dated 02.04.2018 itself at Police Station Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar by her father Dr. Dinesh Chand Sharma. 6. The FIR of this unfortunate suicide was registered as Case Crime No. 375/2018 U/s 306 I.P.C. at 18.06 hours dated 02.04.2018 itself at Police Station Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar by her father Dr. Dinesh Chand Sharma. 6. In Case Crime No. 375/2018 U/s 306 I.P.C. the present applicant is not even named. In the FIR three persons were nominated as accused i.e. Aniket Dixit, Aniket Pandey and one another person but the text of the FIR is shaded by gloomy painful and sad saga of agony of the poor girl, who was pitted against the wall by the act and conduct of the applicant. Informant (father of the victim) has narrated elaborately about the entire incident stating therein the dubious role played by the applicant by mentioning that his daughter was facing most agonizing treatment by the aforesaid named accused i.e. the applicant. The applicant has “suggested” the informant and his daughter about the agony of the prolonged litigation and painted a horrifying picture, if she pursues the present case any further. In fact, he has rather discouraged them (father and the victim girl) to continue with the present case and thus under the pressure and threat of a responsible police personal (the present applicant) they were left with no option except the withdrawl of the criminal prosecution through the alleged application, made by the father of the deceased and after having endorsement of his late daughter over it. Being a sensitive girl, placed at the receiving end, having no ray of hope for getting justice even from the police, as the police personnel instead of giving a psychological cushion to her, started pulling her leg. All these factors cumulatively and adversely affected upon the psyche of the already agonized girl which prompted her to take this extreme step. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop of the case, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant placed his arguments, summary of which are being enumerated below:- (a). The applicant has no role to play in abetting her to commit suicide. (b). Whatever, as alleged in the FIR, the applicant has apprised the ground realities to the informant and his daughter about the hazardous litigation and its consequences, can it be construed to be abetment ? (c). The post mortem report reveals that besides the ligature mark the deceased was also having contusion at lower abdomen. (b). Whatever, as alleged in the FIR, the applicant has apprised the ground realities to the informant and his daughter about the hazardous litigation and its consequences, can it be construed to be abetment ? (c). The post mortem report reveals that besides the ligature mark the deceased was also having contusion at lower abdomen. On the aforesaid post mortem examination report the learned Senior Counsel argued that the injuries, indicated therein, are suggestive of the fact that the family members of the deceased might have tortured her physically and mentally in the house which prompted her to commit suicide. (d) Last but not the least, he claimed parity of the applicant with the case of co-accused Smt. Mamta Tiwari, Head of Department of Academic Course of Bachelor of Computer Application, University Institute of Engineering Technology (UIET), who has been admitted on bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 07.06.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21229 of 2018 and thus on the ground of parity, the applicant too is entitle for bail. 8. Per-contra, Shri Ravindra Verma, learned counsel for the complainant, through counter and supplementary counter affidavits as well as his learned arguments, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and demonstrated all the documents of his favour for consideration of the court. His arguments for the sake of brevity, is summarized as follows: - (a) The alleged “letter of truce” written by father of the deceased regarding withdrawal of criminal prosecution against the named accused persons was procured by the applicant after extending threats and exerting pressure upon the informant as well as his daughter. The statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Constable 399, Ketan establishes that the applicant has extended threats, dictated the “letter of truce’ with the accused and procured the signature of informant Dinesh Chand Sharma. (b) It was argued by Shri Verma, learned counsel for complainant that the applicant prepared FINAL REPORT relying upon the alleged handwritten letter of informant and its endorsement from his daughter (hence deceased) on 01.04.2018, recording 161 Cr.P.C. statements of above duo, the said FINAL REPORT was prepared on the same day i.e. 01.04.2018. After the sad demise of the victim girl, the Circle Officer, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar have entrusted one Mr. After the sad demise of the victim girl, the Circle Officer, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar have entrusted one Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, S.O. Kalyanpur to further investigate the matter thread bare and the veracity of said FINAL REPORT allegedly prepared by the applicant. The said report shows that there were as many as 17 procedural shortcomings in preparing the said closure report, which is clearly indicative of the fact that the concern Investigating Officer/the applicant was, for the reasons best known to him, in hot haste to prepare the said closure report which has substantially contributed in taking the life of young girl. Besides this, the proximity of time in preparing the closure report and commission of suicide by the deceased is self explanatory and throws ample light over the abnormal and uncomfortable circumstance whereby the so-called ‘letter of Truce’ was procured by the applicant from the informant. (c). It was further argued by learned counsel for the informant that the Investigating Officer ought to have boosted moral support to the victim girl instead of suggesting her or her father, the negative, dark thoughts/views in continuing the criminal prosecution and its depressing imaginary repercussions. Not only this, the applicant who is a police personnel, has taken no step to apprehend the known rogues and ruffians who have extended threats to the poor girl for outraging her modesty and kidnapping her. This has given a seasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim that the applicant is having partisan approach towards those felonious guys. (d). Learned counsel for the informant has further raised his reasonable apprehension that the moment the applicant who is police personnel would come out from jail on bail and may adversely effect the smooth sail of trial and would leave no stone unturned in terrorizing and winning over the witnesses, by showing his position and might. 9. (d). Learned counsel for the informant has further raised his reasonable apprehension that the moment the applicant who is police personnel would come out from jail on bail and may adversely effect the smooth sail of trial and would leave no stone unturned in terrorizing and winning over the witnesses, by showing his position and might. 9. After hearing at length, the contentions of both the parties, the applicant, though he has not been named in the FIR, the way and the manner he conducted the investigation, extended threats to the father of the deceased to come to truce, ballooning dark and deep pains of a prolonged litigation and its consequences by gnarling that the name of the girl too would earn a bad name, if the case is propagated in public, therefore, any sensitive father with heavy heart would get no option but to write the alleged “letter of truce”, withdrawing the criminal prosecution. The State machinery, the police authorities is a last resort to punish and penalize the offenders. It is not the job of any Investigating Officer to search out the ways and means to settle down the prosecution, especially when he did not make any attempt to nab the named offenders during the period of two months. The poor girl was at a receiving end, she was being maligned, harassed and oppressed by her class-fellows by extending innuendo and vulgar comments and when she made complaint about the same to the University authorities upon which the University authorities took certain cosmetic action against those erring students and the present applicant, who happens to be on a responsible post of Inspector in Police at the relevant time, was duty-bound to screw those offenders, rather settling the dispute out side by offering them his good offices without affecting the arrest of those erring students during the span of two months. Under these circumstances, it would not be abnormal and unnatural that some body would take extreme step in the stage of hopelessness. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the informant has placed reliance on the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court regarding Section 306 I.P.C. namely; (1) RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF CHHATISGARH (3 JUDGES) 2001(9) SCC 618 AND (2) CHITRESH KUMAR CHOPRA VS.STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI), 2010 3 SCC 367. 11. The word ‘instigate’ has not defined under the Indian Penal Code. STATE OF CHHATISGARH (3 JUDGES) 2001(9) SCC 618 AND (2) CHITRESH KUMAR CHOPRA VS.STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI), 2010 3 SCC 367. 11. The word ‘instigate’ has not defined under the Indian Penal Code. In the judgment of Ramesh Kumar (Supra), the Apex Court has clarified the word “instigate” by mentioning therein that the instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an ‘instigation’ may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit or anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 12. Thus from the above, it is clear that where the accused by his acts or omission or by continued course of conduct, creates such a circumstances that the victim girl was left with no option but to adopt extreme step of committing suicide. The deceased was already reeling under the immense mental and psychological stress by the conduct of her class-mates and the only ray of hope was with the police officials, who too shrugged its shoulder by behaving inertly and tried to settle down the matter by suppressing the agony and pain of the informant, painting negative thoughts/views and depressing imaginary repercussions of the case affecting their life styles instead of taking penal action against the offenders. 13. The last argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, is claiming parity with the co-accused Ms. Mamta Tiwari (HOD). The case and the role of co-accused is clearly distinguishable. 13. The last argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, is claiming parity with the co-accused Ms. Mamta Tiwari (HOD). The case and the role of co-accused is clearly distinguishable. She was Head of Department, whereas the present applicant was deputed the Investigating Officer of the case who have taken active role in nipping down the bud and closing the chapter at threshold stage by giving a closure report but subsequently, the police after making thorough investigation into the matter, submitted charge sheet, therefore, there cannot be any parity drawn between the case of applicant and co-accused Mamta Tiwari, following the principles laid down in CHANDER @ CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P. [1997 (34) ACC 311]. 14. I find no good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. The bail application of the applicant is here by rejected at this stage. 15. The trial court is expected to gear-up the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, if possible within one and half Years, keeping in view the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. as reiterated in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh [ 2001 (4) SCC 667 ], Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal [(2002) 7 SCC] and Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab [(2015) 3 SCC 220]. 16. Office is directed to serve copy of this order to the learned AGA, as per Rules of the Court. It is further directed to transmit the copy of this order to the concerned court within a fortnight for necessary compliance.