JUDGMENT Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking regular bail, by the petitioner/Accused No. 7 in Crime No. 287 of 2022 of Nandigama Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased who is the elder daughter of the de facto complainant had completed intermediate. Because of financial problems, the de facto complainant took loan through credit cards and she failed to pay the loan amount. Then the officials of SBI bank who are accused had come to the complainant house to recover the loan amount and insulted her and her daughters using filthy language and threatened to kill them. Due to which the deceased got depressed and committed suicide by hanging herself and died. Hence, the present complaint. 3. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that on a plain reading of the complaint no ingredients attracting Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner are found. It is further contended that, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 125 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, seeking grant of bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the investigation is in progress. It is also contended that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 41 days. Hence, prays this Court to consider this application. 5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all the details. He further submits that though the substantial investigation is completed, if the petitioner is granted bail, he may not co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. A perusal of record, prima facie shows that the allegations made against the petitioner do not attract the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 7. Section 306 IPC reads as under: '306. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. A perusal of record, prima facie shows that the allegations made against the petitioner do not attract the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 7. Section 306 IPC reads as under: '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.' 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Mohan v. State of Tamilnadu (2011) 3 SCC 626 while dealing with ingredients of Section 306 of IPC held as under: 'Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative, but to commit suicide. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable'. 9. Taking the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material available on record into consideration and since the petitioner is languishing in jail for the last 41 days and as substantial investigation is completed and prima facie the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not found at this stage, by taking into consideration the judgment referred supra and as A5 and A6 were granted bail by this Court in Crl.P. No. 6880 of 2022, by order dated 08.08.2022, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however by duly taking the apprehensions of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama; (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, NTR District, thrice in a week i.e. on every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday between 12.00 noon and 04.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet; and (iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the de facto complainant or her family members and witnesses under any circumstances in this regard and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence; and (iv) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. They shall make themselves available to the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate proper investigation in this case. Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and in case of infraction of the same, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the finding in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering bail in the above Criminal Petition and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.