ORDER : 1. This is an anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the petitioner in relation to F.I.R. No 318/2022 of Police Station Rohat, District Pali, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 384 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Let me briefly mention the facts germane for disposal of present petition. Bharat Singh, son of the deceased Hanuman Singh, lodged an F.I.R. on 04.11.2022 stating inter alia that his father had been doing contracting work for Municipal Council, Pali and other departments under the name of two firms namely “Satyam Construction” and “Hanuman Singh/Mool Singh Construction Company” for the last 20-22 years. Hanuman Singh had secured contracts for many works from the Municipal Council, Pali some of which were completed and some were in progress. Hanuman Singh had about two and a half crore rupees outstanding from the Municipal Council for those works, for which he was repeatedly visiting the Municipal Council Office but was not being paid. Hanuman Singh had borrowed money from the banks, market, and his relatives. Hanuman Singh was repeatedly visiting Municipal Council’s Chairperson Rekha Bhati, her husband Rakesh Bhati; Commissioner Brajesh Rai and Naresh Chaudhary of the Accounts Section to get the payment. However, all of them were illegally demanding a 10 percent advance commission for payment of outstanding amount. This was conveyed to the complainant by his father. 3. It was further stated that Hanuman Singh’s reputation was being tarnished due to his inability to pay the borrowed amount. Above-mentioned officials of Municipal Council, Pali told Hanuman Singh that even if he had to die, he must pay the commission amount. Consequently, his father started becoming silent, worried and sad. Hanuman Singh also shared these concerns with Narpat Singh and Babu Singh. Fed up Hanuman Singh committed suicide by hanging himself in a room of his house on 04.11.2022. A suicide note was found in pocket of trouser of Hanuman Singh, in which he held the aforementioned individuals responsible for his suicide. On the basis of aforesaid report, a formal FIR was registered and matter is under investigation. 4. While opening his arguments, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently pointed out that petitioner is not responsible in any manner to clear the pending bills. On the basis of aforesaid report, a formal FIR was registered and matter is under investigation. 4. While opening his arguments, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently pointed out that petitioner is not responsible in any manner to clear the pending bills. In order dated 14.02.2023, the State Government has opined the responsibility of clearing the outstanding amount to the contractors on time, to be that of the Chairperson. Vide said order, the Chairperson of the Municipal Council, Pali has been prima facie held responsible by the State Government for negligence in discharge of duty and misuse of official position as well as failure to make payment to contractors on time. It is further argued that approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act has also been issued by the State Government against the Chairperson and her husband only. According to the State Government’s order No. 36434 dated 09.11.2017, the entire administrative and financial control and authority of the Municipal Council is vested in the Chairperson only, therefore all the administrative and financial action of the Municipal Council can be carried out only after the Chairperson’s prior approval. 5. It is further contended that vide Notification dated 23.02.2015, the Commissioner of the Municipal Council has independent financial authority only up to the limit of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further argued that as per above Notification, entering into a contract, for purchasing any goods or execution of any work, for an amount exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/- was not possible without prior administrative and financial approval of the Chairperson. The payment of the amount for such a contract was also not possible without the prior approval of the Chairperson. The Commissioner has no role in approving payment beyond Rs. 2,00,000/- rather, after the Chairperson’s prior approval, the process of payment is initiated by the Accounts Section. It is further argued that even the internal inquiry report of the department of Local Bodies did not find that the process of payment to the deceased was ever stopped at the Commissioner’s level. No complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau was made by the deceased for asking of illegal gratification. 6. It is further argued that even the internal inquiry report of the department of Local Bodies did not find that the process of payment to the deceased was ever stopped at the Commissioner’s level. No complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau was made by the deceased for asking of illegal gratification. 6. It is also argued that the petitioner has already joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required; that there are no allegations of petitioner tampering with the evidence and nothing is to be recovered from applicant; that petitioner is innocent and present FIR filed against the petitioner is false and baseless; that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a false case; that there is no record to show as to how ingredients of Sections 306 and 384 of the IPC is made out against him. The petitioner had no role to play in suicide of Hanuman Singh. Nothing is specifically attributed against the petitioner with regard to abetment or instigation made by the petitioner. He thus, urges that the petitioner deserves indulgence of pre-arrest bail in this case. 7. From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, have strongly objected to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that a suicide note was recovered form the pocket of the deceased Hanuman Singh wherein, all that has been alleged that Commissioner along with Chairperson Rekha Bhati, her husband Rakesh Bhati and accounts persons compelled him to die for not fulfillment of demand of illegal gratification and he committed suicide as his pending bills were not being cleared by them. He further submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. The deceased has left a detailed suicide note, giving complete narrative of his grievances and the sequence of facts which led to the ultimate step being taken by him. It is further submitted that as per the allegations, petitioner was serving in the Municipal Council, Pali as Commissioner. Therefore, he had been harassing the deceased by not making payment of his dues. Since the matter pertains to official working, therefore the investigation of the case would require extraction of intricate details of the circumstances which constituted the factual gamut forcing the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required. 8. Therefore, he had been harassing the deceased by not making payment of his dues. Since the matter pertains to official working, therefore the investigation of the case would require extraction of intricate details of the circumstances which constituted the factual gamut forcing the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required. 8. It is further argued that there are serious allegations against the applicant and on the basis of material collected so far, investigating officer has reason to believe that petitioner is guilty of offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code besides other alleged offences. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that in absence of custodial interrogation of petitioner, investigation in this case cannot be taken to its logical conclusion and in view of nature and gravity of offences, custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential. Lastly, it was argued that benefit of anticipatory bail should not be accorded to the petitioner. 9. This Court has carefully perused the record as well as considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties. 10. Determining the parameters in granting anticipatory bail, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 1 SCC 152 after analyzing the entire law has observed as under: (a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. (b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence. (c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. (d) The possibility of the likelihood of accused to repeat similar or other offences. (e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (g) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. (f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (g) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern. (h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. (i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused in entitled to an order of bail. 11. Applying the afore-noted dictum to the instant case and after having heard both the sides at length and on perusal of the record, it would be prima facie clear that vide order dated 14.02.2023, the State Government has found responsibility of paying the outstanding amount to the contractors on time, to be that of Chairperson. It is noticed that the approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act has also been issued against the Chairperson and her husband only. According to the State Government’s Order No. 36434 dated 09.11.2017, the entire administrative and financial control and authority of the Municipal Council can be carired out only after the Chairperson’s approval. 12. This Court is prima facie of the view that while entering into a contract for purchasing any goods or execution of any work, for an amount exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/- was possible only with the prior administrative and financial approval of the Chairperson hence payment of the amount more than Rs.2,00,000/- for any such contract was possible only with the prior approval of the Chairperson. 2,00,000/- was possible only with the prior administrative and financial approval of the Chairperson hence payment of the amount more than Rs.2,00,000/- for any such contract was possible only with the prior approval of the Chairperson. Prima facie, the Commissioner has no role in approving such payment. The internal investigation report of the department of Local Bodies also did not find that the process of payment to the deceased was ever stopped or hurdled at the Commissioner’s level. 13. Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court is required to 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 action proximate to the time of occurrence, on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be considered to be prima facie fulfilled. 14. Going by the complaint, due to the pressure put by petitioner, deceased committed suicide and nothing is made out from the complaint with regard to abetment or instigation made by the petitioner. In the present case as stated supra going by the complaint and suicide note, prima facie there is no instigation or abetment made by the petitioner which led the deceased to commit suicide. 15. As an upshot of the above discussion and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, role of the present applicant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 16. As an upshot of the above discussion and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, role of the present applicant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 16. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Brijesh Rai S/o C.K. Rai in connection with the FIR No. 318/2022, Police Station Rohat, District Pali, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer. (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (iv) that the petitioner shall abide by all the conditions specified under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for. 17. The comments made hereinabove shall be considered restricted to this bail application only and will not prejudice the final outcome of the case. 18. Disposed of accordingly.