ORDER : MITALI THAKURIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNS S , 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Sri Rudra Kumar Pathak, who is apprehending arrest in connection with the Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 188/2025, under Sections 108 /3(5) of the BNS , 2023. The case diary is received and perused the same. 3. It is submitted by Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is innocent and no way connected with the alleged offence. The petitioner is a Government Registered contractor having valid registration and in the said capacity, he has been running his contractual works in various Departments with utmost sincerity and dedication, without any complaint whatsoever from any corner and he also does not have any criminal antecedent. He is also a senior citizen, aged about 70 years and also suffering from various ailments including eye ailment i.e. suffering from glaucoma. As he is in advance age and also due to illness, the petitioner does not regularly look after the day to day activities of his business and as such, he has engaged several employees who used to look after his projects. He was selected for the project of construction of a mini stadium at Borsongaon in Bongaigaon District. Further it is submitted that till date he had completed 66% of the construction work and the petitioner has submitted bills for an amount of Rs. 7.2 Crores out of which, bills for an amount of Rs. 4.96 Crores has been received and the construction work is still going on. The building design was carried out by M/s. Aesthetic Creations and the petitioner has no role in the same, if there are any variations in the design of the stadium. He further submitted that he had met the deceased/victim only in the month of April, 2024, when she visited his house to attend some function and thereafter, he never met the deceased in any occasion and he also visits the work site rarely due to his illness as well as for his old age. Further he had already received more than Rs. Further he had already received more than Rs. 4 Crores towards the bill amount till date and there is no mention about any corruption against the present petitioner or his involvement in committing any practice of corruption in the alleged offence. In the suicide note also, nothing has been attributed against the petitioner nor there is any allegation of instigation made against the present petitioner to attract Section 45 of the BNS , 2023 (corresponding to Section 107 of the IPC). He further submitted that abetment is a thing as defined under Section 45 of the BNS , 2023 and on reading of the FIR, it can be seen that none of the ingredients of abetment can be made out against the present petitioner. Moreover, as stated above, the statement made in the FIR itself, the deceased had specifically named certain persons and the present petitioner’s name does not appear therein and as such, considering this aspect also, the accused petitioner may be granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Further, there is no allegation of any mental or physical cruelty, proximate to the death of the deceased and from the suicide note itself, it is seen that the deceased was not in a rational state of mind, as she could not face the work pressure. 4. Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is action on the part of the accused, who compels the deceased to commit suicide. Moreover, such offending action has to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there may be allegation of continuous harassment but unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC (corresponding to Section 108 of the BNS , 2023). 5. It is further contended by Mr. 5. It is further contended by Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that by considering the previous judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185/2024 ( Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ) , which was passed on 18.08.2025, had taken into consideration all the aspects including the close proximity to the date of incident vis-à-vis the mens rea for the abetment of committing suicide. Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel emphasized on para 22, 23, 24 and 40 of the said judgment, which read as under: “22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 , still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim. 23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306 . 24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306 . 40. True, a person unable to bear the pressure or withstand a humiliation or unable to oppose, may succumb to the extreme act of ending his own life, in desperation; but that would not necessarily mean that the alleged perpetrator had an intention to lead the victim to eventual death by his own or her own hands. We find no such instigation on the part of the accused in this case, or a definitive abetment to suicide, as alleged in the FIR. There arises a cloud on the suicide note, when looking at the admitted statements recorded in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges and also the manner in which the note was introduced in the case. Before the Committee of Privileges, no reference was made to the various allegations in the suicide note, against the named officers. There arises a cloud on the suicide note, when looking at the admitted statements recorded in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges and also the manner in which the note was introduced in the case. Before the Committee of Privileges, no reference was made to the various allegations in the suicide note, against the named officers. We have found the suicide note to be suspect and we are not convinced that there is any modicum of material in the case to find abetment of suicide. The High Court was not in error, when it quashed the FIR, when no case is made out from the FIS.”. 6. Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is an unfortunate incident wherein a young lady of 29 years of age committed suicide but unless the ingredients of Section 45 and Section 108 of the BNS , 2023 is fulfilled, a person cannot be stated to be alleged to have committed offence. In that regard also he cited another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835, and basically emphasized in para 30, 31 and 37 and para 37 of the said judgment reads as under : “37. We further find that the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish that the appellants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide. No doubt that a young woman of 25 years has lost her life in an unfortunate incident. However, in the absence of sufficient material to show that the appellants had intended by their words to push the deceased into such a position that she was left with no other option but to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse of process of law and as such, we are inclined to allow the appeal.”. 7. Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 , wherein in para 19 of the said judgment expressed the view that presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 8. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 , wherein in para 19 of the said judgment expressed the view that presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 8. Further citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh) , reported in (2017) 7 SCC 780 , it is submitted by Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence, on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 of the IPC (corresponding to Section 108 of the BNS , 2023) is not sustainable. In that context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana , reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 , and emphasized on para 16 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case”. 9. Citing the above referred judgments, it is submitted by Mr. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case”. 9. Citing the above referred judgments, it is submitted by Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that mere allegation of harassment upon the deceased by another person would not suffice, unless there be such action on the part of the accused who compels the person to commit suicide and it has to be proximate to the time of incident. 10. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present petitioner is a 70 years old person suffering from various kind of ailment including eye ailment and hence, considering his age and also considering the fact that he has no criminal antecedent, the petitioner may be allowed to remain on interim pre-arrest bail so that he can appear before the I.O. and co-operate with the investigation of this case. 11. It is a settled law that no person should be arrested without the reasonable satisfaction, reached after some investigation and the police officer must justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. To substantiate the submission, Mr. Mahajan also cited another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others , reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 , and relied on para 20 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “20. ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………. The above guidelines are merely the incidents of personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.” 12. Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submitted that the present petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate the I.O. with the further investigation of the case, if he is provided with some interim protection and being a local resident of the addressed locality, there is no question of absconding, rather he will extend his full co-operation in the investigation of this case. 13. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted in this regard that during the investigation, the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused petitioner and from the FIR itself, it is seen that the deceased had disclosed many facts to the informant and the harassment made by the present petitioner including other co-accused persons. Further he submitted that substandard materials were used for construction which otherwise breached the trust of the State. He further submitted that it is not a case of inter relationship between two persons but a public servant committed suicide in an exceptional situations/circumstances. Further he submitted that substandard materials were used for construction which otherwise breached the trust of the State. He further submitted that it is not a case of inter relationship between two persons but a public servant committed suicide in an exceptional situations/circumstances. Thus, it is one of the exceptional case, wherein the victim had to take such extreme step only due to mental pressure exerted on her and the trauma she faced while she was entrusted with the work of construction of the Mini Stadium at Bongaigaon. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam further submitted that the present petitioner and through his son, the victim was pressurized continuously only for submission and clearance of bills, which also created immense mental pressure on the deceased for which she had to take such steps to end her life. Further, Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the construction work was going on by deviating all the contractual conditions and in spite of her protest, she was continuously pressurized by the present petitioner along with other co-accused persons, only with a view to clear the contractual bills for their own benefits. Thus, there was available evidence that the petitioner had the mens rea and continuous mental harassment was there on the deceased for which she had to commit suicide and thus, there is a prima facie case that there was instigation/abetment from the part of the present accused petitioner and also fulfills the ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS , 2023. 14. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam further submitted that the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Abhinav Mohan Delkar (Supra), was passed on different context and it is seen from para 37, that the statement recorded in the suicide note over which there was a cloud and subsequent conduct of the police regarding delay in registering the crime and the casual statement made in the FIR also create suspicion in regards to the veracity of the prosecution case as well as the suicide note. But here in the instant case, it is seen that the case was registered immediately after recovery of the suicide note on the day itself and till date, there is no question of suspecting the genuineness of the suicide note which was immediately recovered and the case was registered accordingly. 15. But here in the instant case, it is seen that the case was registered immediately after recovery of the suicide note on the day itself and till date, there is no question of suspecting the genuineness of the suicide note which was immediately recovered and the case was registered accordingly. 15. In that context, Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment which is passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a judgment in rem and not in personam, wherein it has been held that close proximity to the death of incident and the mens rea has to be established to fulfill the ingredients of Section 45 as well as Section 108 of the BNS , 2023. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam further submitted that the proximity is not defined and in any case and it is seen that there was continuous pressure on the deceased since last 8/9 months till the date of incident and thus, it can be held that there is a close proximity to the date of incident of committing suicide by the deceased. Further, motive, guilty mind and mens rea are very much available against the present petitioner, who being the contractor exerted tremendous mental pressure on the victim to sanction and pass the bills. More so, the social interest is to be considered in such nature of case, wherein a public servant committed suicide. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that during the course of investigation, the I.O. has also sent for FSL examination of the WhatsApp messages, chats and the communication with the deceased by the present petitioner and also through his sons and the FSL report, etc. are still awaited. Further he submitted that the investigation is still under process and there are many more matters to be unearthed. Accordingly he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to allow the accused/ petitioner to provided with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 16. Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted in this regard that mens rea is required for each and every offence and it differs from case to case. Here, in the instant case also, it was continuous mental pressure of the deceased to pass the bills for their own profit. 16. Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted in this regard that mens rea is required for each and every offence and it differs from case to case. Here, in the instant case also, it was continuous mental pressure of the deceased to pass the bills for their own profit. More so, there is specific allegation brought against the present petitioner in the FIR, which was lodged by the sister of the deceased, who was continuously in touch with the deceased, who used to report all the official matters to her family members. He further submitted that this case can be considered as a special case, wherein a public servant committed suicide due to continuous pressure exerted on her by the persons from her own Department including the Architect and the present petitioner, who is a contractor. He further submitted that abetment or instigation may be different in different cases, which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In every case, there may not be any direct act but if there is any indirect act, which led the deceased to commit suicide will also fulfill the ingredients of abetment/instigation to attract Section 108 of the BNS , 2023. 17. Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the informant relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana , reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 , wherein in para 14.2, it is held as under: " 14.2. In the case of Pawan Kumar (supra), the allegation against the accused was that as he had eloped with the deceased girl, he thought that she was responsible for the criminal proceedings against him by her family and hence, subjected her to abject teasing despite she standing with him and having him acquitted of the offences imputed. On one occasion, while the deceased was staying at her parent's home, he threatened to kidnap her and this led to her pouring kerosene over herself and setting herself ablaze. In her dying declaration, she wrote a letter narrating that the accused was responsible for the step that she had taken. On one occasion, while the deceased was staying at her parent's home, he threatened to kidnap her and this led to her pouring kerosene over herself and setting herself ablaze. In her dying declaration, she wrote a letter narrating that the accused was responsible for the step that she had taken. Though the Trial Court had acquitted the accused of all charges, on appeal, the order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court and the accused was convicted under Section 306 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years together with fine. In further appeal, another three-Judge Bench of this Court upheld the order of the High Court with reference to the principles relating to the offence of abetment of suicide. This Court referred to several decisions, including that in the case Ramesh Kumar (supra), and observed, inter alia, as under: 34. The word ‘‘abetment’’ has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context, the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental element……. xxx xxx xxx 36. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or maybe by (implied) conduct. 37. The word "urge forwards" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more quickly in the particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. Therefore, a person instigating another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as "abetment". xxx xxx xxx 43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life. 44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life spark. 45. ………………………… 46. …………………………”. 18. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life spark. 45. ………………………… 46. …………………………”. 18. He further submitted that to fulfill the ingredient of Section 45 of the BNS , 2023, it is not necessary to have a direct instigation but as per Section 45 (b) of the BNS , 2023, if one or more persons are engaged in any conspiracy for doing that thing or an illegal omission takes place in pursuant to that conspiracy, also fulfill the ingredients of Section 45 of the BNS , 2023, to prove the instigation/abetment. 19. Here, in the instant case also, it is seen that a conspiracy was made by the petitioner along with the other co-accused person who instigate/pressurize the deceased to pass some inflated bills only in favour of the present petitioner, who is also a contractor and for the benefit of other co-accused persons. Further, he submitted that the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is relied by the present petitioner, it is seen that the nature of allegation and the case is not similar with the present case and here in the instant case, it is the allegation that continuous harassment/mental pressure was on the deceased which was proximate to her death. It is also not a case that she was a hyper sensitive girl rather it is seen that she was a public servant who was pressurized to do some illegal act on the very inception of her career. He further submitted that the deceased could not bring all the allegations and materials in her suicide note as she was not a legal expert to put all the ingredients in her suicide note or she was also not under any expectation that after her death, the matter will raise before the Court of law. 20. Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the informant further submitted that interrogation of a person under protection and interrogation of a person under custody is quite different and if the present petitioner is allowed to remain on protection of interim pre-arrest bail, the investigation may be hampered with and for the interest of the investigation, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is very much essential. 21. Mr. 21. Mr. Nawaz accordingly raised vehement objection and submit that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 22. After hearing the submission made by learned counsel for the both sides, I have thoroughly perused the case diary and the report of the I.O., including the bail objection filed by the I.O., to know the involvement of the present petitioner in the instant case. 23. It is seen that the deceased used to have WhatsApp chats and talks with her family members including the informant before committing suicide as to how she is facing tremendous mental pressure from her officials as well as the contractor and the architect, which is also mentioned in the FIR by the sister of the deceased to came to know about the same during the lifetime of the deceased. The I.O. has also collected sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner and from the materials available in the case diary and from the report of the I.O., it is seen that the deceased was in tremendous mental pressure, while she was asked to sign some bills and certificates by her controlling officers. It is further seen that the present petitioner being the contractor had used some substandard materials for construction of the said stadium with some major deviations and the son of the present petitioner, namely, one Parag Pathak also used to influence the officials and also tried to pass the bills of his contract work, which work was executed by using by substandard materials and put pressure on the deceased to approve those substandard materials for use for construction of the said mini stadium. Further, during investigation, it is also came to the light that the completion certificate and the certificate for the materials used in the project was certified by one of the co-accused, namely, Sri Dinesh Sharma Medhi and Md. Aminul Islam, by putting pressure on the deceased, she was bound to make signature on those completion certificate and the certificate of materials. In the certificate, it was certified that for re-enforcement, TATA and SAIL rode was used and cement used was Lafarge Ambuja cement, but on verification it was found that Black Tiger cement was used and for re-enforcement Durgapur rode was used. 24. In the certificate, it was certified that for re-enforcement, TATA and SAIL rode was used and cement used was Lafarge Ambuja cement, but on verification it was found that Black Tiger cement was used and for re-enforcement Durgapur rode was used. 24. During investigation, several invoices were also found in the name of the present petitioner, wherefrom it was seen that the Black Tiger Cement, GCC Cement and Dragon Cement etc. were used which were considered to be sub- standard materials. Further, from the materials available in the case diary, it is also seen that the present petitioner had several contacts with the deceased over mobile phone and tried to complete the work even without site Engineer from the contractor’s side. It is further seen that the son of the present petitioner who was also looking after the project work also created mental pressure on the deceased for passing these inflated bills with the conspiracy with the present petitioner. The messages and the telephonic conversation etc., are yet to be retrieved/analyzed by the FSL expert, which are already sent for analysis. 25. Accordingly, it is seen that the present petitioner is fully involved in the alleged offence and he was also played an important role with conspiracy with other accused persons to exert tremendous mental pressure on the deceased, for which she was left with no other option but to commit suicide. More so, it is seen that the submission of the running bill (27.06.2025) and her suicide (22.07.2025) is less than one month and thus, she was under immediate threat and pressure for clearing/passing all those bills and the present petitioner along with the other co-accused persons put tremendous mental pressure on her to pass those inflated bills by using some substandard materials for the construction work. 26. The deceased also wrote a letter to M/s. Aesthetic Creations regarding the use of substandard materials but she was forcibly asked to sign those bills and certificates by her controlling officer, including the architect and the contractor, which she communicated all these things to her friends and family members through WhatsApp, as to what are going on and under what pressure she had to discharge her official work. 27. 27. All the co-accused persons with conspiracy also released the bill amount of Rs.2,25,84,492/- (Rupees two crore twenty five lakh eighty four thousands four hundred ninety two) only in favour of the present petitioner and all the accused persons and the present petitioner also in hurry to release the bill amount to get their commissions, which also traumatized the deceased, as she was under pressure to do some illegitimate works, which created tremendous pressure on her, which she could not bear and ultimately took such extreme step. 28. As expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhinav Mohan Delkar (Supra) as referred above, it is well settled that close proximity to the date of incident vis-à-vis the mens rea for the abetment of committing suicide is necessary to fulfill the ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS , 2023 (corresponding to Section 306 of the IPC). More so, instigation or abetment has to be established to fulfill Section 45 of the BNS , 2023. But here in the instant case, it is seen that as per the allegation, the victim was under tremendous mental pressure, as all the co-accused persons including the present petitioner and the architect etc. had exerted mental pressure on her since last 8/9 months till the date of the incident and thus, it cannot be denied that there was a close proximity to the date of incident, when she committed suicide. It is not a case that the deceased was under mental pressure about 8/9 months ago, but from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is prima facie seen that she was continuously under mental pressure and agony till her death. Further, it is also a settled proposition of law that abetment/instigation may be different in different cases and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In every case, there may not be any direct act but if there is any indirect act, which led the deceased to commit suicide will also fulfill the ingredients of abetment/instigation to attract Section 108 of the BNS , 2023. More so, as discussed above, Section 45 (b) of the BNS , 2023 also speaks that if there is any conspiracy for doing that thing or an illegal omission takes place in pursuant to that conspiracy, will also be considered as an abetment or instigation. 29. More so, as discussed above, Section 45 (b) of the BNS , 2023 also speaks that if there is any conspiracy for doing that thing or an illegal omission takes place in pursuant to that conspiracy, will also be considered as an abetment or instigation. 29. Here, in the instant case, it is also seen that with the conspiracy of all the accused persons including the present petitioner, who continuously pressurized the deceased to do some illegal official works, while she was discharging her duty and thus, it cannot be said that there was no abetment/ instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. Further, it is not a case that due to some personal relationship or some family pressure etc. the deceased committed suicide but it is a case wherein a public servant committed suicide, who was pressurized to do some illegal acts and she was compelled to put her signature on some inflated bills, in favour of the present petitioner in spite of her knowledge that some substandard materials have been used, whereby have breached the Government trust. 30. Considering these aspects of the case and the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be necessary to know about the other facts of the case or to unearth some more facts in the present case. 31. In view of this, I do not find it justified to grant with the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner at this stage and accordingly, the same is rejected. 32. The bail petition stands disposed of. Return back the case diary forthwith.