ORDER : Subodh Abhyankar, J. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to typographical mistake in the bail application the name of the applicant is mentioned as Reeta d/o Chunnilal Bhabhar whereas being a woman she happens to be the daughter of Chunnilal Bhabhar. 2. They are heard. Perused the case diary/challan papers. 3. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he/she is implicated in connection with Crime No.129/2023 registered at Police Station Pithampur Sector No. 1, District-Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under sections 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is in custody since 28-2-2022. 4. The allegation against the applicant is of instigating the offence of suicide and it is alleged that the applicant who happens to be the finance of the deceased refused to marry her (sic. him). 5. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that admittedly the deceased was residing with the applicant at the time when the incident took place and it cannot be said that she refused to marry him which led to his death. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed, applicant is lodged in jail since 28-2-2022 and the final conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time. Hence, it is submitted that the bail application be allowed and he (sic. she) be released on bail. 6. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the deceased has also left the suicide note before committing the suicide by hanging and in the suicide note he has clearly stated that the he was engaged to the present applicant who refused to marry him and she was also having an affair and the person with whom she was having an affair was Pawan and he has also threatened the deceased to leave the applicant. The deceased has also stated in his suicide note that he had also given Rs. 1,00,000/- to the father of the applicant and he was demanding further Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thus it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. The deceased has also stated in his suicide note that he had also given Rs. 1,00,000/- to the father of the applicant and he was demanding further Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thus it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. On due consideration of submissions, on perusal of the case diary and considering the fact that the grievance of the deceased was that the applicant had refused to marry him, however, even according to the case diary it is an admitted fact that the applicant was already residing with her (sic. him) since last two days, this Court is of the view that the further custody does not appear necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his (sic. her) regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he (sic. she) shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Certified copy as per rules.