ORDER : 1. The subject crime in this case is Crime No. 691/2018 of Pooyapally Police Station which has initially registered under Secs. 174 of the Cr.P.C. on account of the unnatural death of the deceased lady victim. The Police after investigation has altered the offences to those as per Sec. 306 of the IPC wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused herein has been arrayed as the sole accused therein. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner aged 24 years was having a love affair with the lady victim aged 20 years and she had committed suicide on 22.04.2018 and she left a note before her suicide stating that the petitioner is responsible for her death. The petitioner has been arrested on 09.08.2018 and has been under judicial custody since then. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and further that the bald and vague allegations made by the deceased in her alleged suicide note that the accused is one who is responsible for her death, will not in any manner even remotely fulfill the strict requirements of the ingredients of the offence of abatement as per Sec. 107 of the IPC and the offence of the abatement to commit suicide as per Sec 306 of the IPC and that the arrest and detention of the petitioner is highly illegal and unnecessary. Further that the petitioner has a good case even to seek quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that in this case it is highly illegal on the part of the investigating officer concerned to have arrested the petitioner merely on the basis of the bald and vague allegations in the alleged suicide note that it is the accused who was responsible for the death of the deceased lady. That apart from the said suicide note, the Police does not have any credible objective materials, even to remotely connect the petitioner with the strict requirements of the abovesaid offences. That apart from the said suicide note, the Police does not have any credible objective materials, even to remotely connect the petitioner with the strict requirements of the abovesaid offences. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on various rulings of the Apex Court and this Court which has dealt with the parameters and ingredients to be satisfied in respect of the offences as per Secs.107 and 306 of the IPC in decisions as in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [2002 SCC (Crl.) 1141], Krishnadas v. State of Kerala [ 2017 (2) KLT 579 ], Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab [ 2016 (12) SCALE 414 ], Harikrishnan & Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr. [ 2019 (3) KHC 437 ]. 3. Further, the petitioner would also placed reliance on decisions of the Apex Court as in State of Kerala and others v. S.Unnikrishnan Nair and others [ 2015 (9) SCC 639 ] = 2015 KHC 4535 (SC) wherein it has been reiterated by the Apex Court that bald, vague and general allegations in the suicide note that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased, will not satisfy the requirements of the ingredients of Secs.107 and 306 of the IPC and that unless there are cogent and convincing materials to show a continuous conduct of harrasment and cruelty by the accused by which he has instigated the deceased to commit suicide, it cannot be said that the accused is to be implicated in such offence based on such a suicide note. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decisions as in S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and anr. [2010 KHC 4560] as well as the judgment in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) [ 2009 (16) SCC 605 ] wherein the Apex Court has dealt with the requirements of “instigation” and “goading” the victim to commit suicide. 4. Accordingly, it is urged by the petitioner's counsel that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary and the petitioner may be released on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is likely to intimidate or influence the witnesses, if he is let out on bail. 5. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is likely to intimidate or influence the witnesses, if he is let out on bail. 5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is constrained to take the view that the mere notings in the alleged suicide note that it was the accused who is responsible for the death of the victim cannot be the basis to hold that there are objective materials to fulfill the strict ingredients of the offence as per Sec. 107 of the IPC and the offence of abatement to commit suicide as per Sec.306 of the IPC. It is all the more so, in view of the abovesaid settled legal position as held in the aforestated rulings. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to take the view that the petitioner has made out a strong probable case that his continued detention is not necessary. 6. Accordingly it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. 7. However the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays, at any time between 10 am and 1 pm, for a further period of 3 months and thereafter he shall report before the Investigating Officer, as and when directed by him. ii. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. iii. He shall not commit any offence while on bail. iv. If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned shall stand hereby empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.