ORDER : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’). 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.155 of 2025 of Thenhipalam Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offence punishable under section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’). 3. According to the prosecution, on 10.02.2025, Sri.Sunil Kumar, consumed poison and committed suicide and the accused abetted its commission and thereby committed the offence alleged. 4. Sri. Sasith M R, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false, and the petitioners have no involvement in the alleged suicide of the deceased Sri.Sunilkumar. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners have neither instigated nor aided, through any act or omission, the commission of suicide and therefore, petitioners cannot be roped in as accused to the crime. It was further submitted that the prosecution allegations also do not indicate any specific reason which could be attributed as an abetment for the commission of suicide on the part of the petitioners and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners ought not to be permitted. 5. Smt.Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased had, before committing suicide, written a note, specifically referring to the petitioners involvement in his death and, therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary to identify the details and the manner in which the crime was committed. It was also submitted that petitioners had not only behaved rudely, but had also blocked the water and electricity supplies to the house of the deceased under construction, and also had failed to complete its construction as agreed between them, which led to the deceased committing suicide. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there were specific instances of intentional aiding or instigation by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide and hence petitioners ought to be subjected to custodial interrogation. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the case diary. 7. The deceased Sri.Sunilkumar had written a note before committing suicide. The said note refers to the petitioners as persons with whom there was a dispute over water and a case was pending amongst them. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the case diary. 7. The deceased Sri.Sunilkumar had written a note before committing suicide. The said note refers to the petitioners as persons with whom there was a dispute over water and a case was pending amongst them. Petitioners are alleged to have threatened that if the case was not withdrawn, the deceased will not be permitted to use water for construction purposes. 8. Statements of the witnesses recorded so far also indicate that the second petitioner was supervising the construction of the house of the deceased and there was a quarrel between them and later the second petitioner blocked the supply of water and electricity for the house construction. The first petitioner is also alleged to have collected amounts from the deceased, promising to supervise the completion of construction of the building but thereafter failed to do so, which was also mentioned in the suicide note as one of the reasons for committing suicide. 9. The offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS requires the ingredients of Section 45 BNS to be satisfied. As per the said provision, a person abets the doing of a thing, if he instigates any person to do that thing. It is not every act or conduct that may amount to abetment of suicide. Law requires the accused to have intended by his act or instigation that the deceased would commit suicide. In order to attract the offence under Section 108 of the BNS , the abetment must have been for committing suicide and not for doing some other act. Unless the instigation is done with the intention to prod the deceased to commit suicide, or had intentionally aided the commission of suicide, the offence under Section 108 of the BNS will not be attracted. The crucial ingredient of the offence of abetment of suicide is the element of mens rea in prompting the deceased to commit suicide. In other words, the act alleged as instigation must have been done with the intention that the deceased had to commit suicide. Hence the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended.The question to be considered is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended. 10. In other words, the act alleged as instigation must have been done with the intention that the deceased had to commit suicide. Hence the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended.The question to be considered is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended. 10. In this context, it is appropriate to mention that a straight - jacket formula cannot be adopted while dealing with cases of abetment of suicide. In the decision in Radhika Kapahtia (Dr.) v. State of Kerala [ (2024) 2 KLT 635 ] it was observed that the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended and also that no straight - jacket formula can be adopted while dealing with cases of abetment of suicide as each case had to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. In Cyriac v. S.I. of Police [ (2005) 3 KLT 673 ] also it was observed that what is of significance is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended by his act. 11. In the decision in Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal [ (2010) 1 SCC 707 ] , it was held, after referring to the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab , [ (2004) 13 SCC 129 ] that “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.” 12. In the instant case, except for the suicide note, prima facie there is nothing to indicate that accused had abetted the offence of commission of suicide by the deceased. Even if the suicide note is taken into consideration, it will only indicate that there were certain disputes between the parties. However, that by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that accused had abetted the commission of suicide. Of course, these are matters to be identified during investigation. 13. Even if the suicide note is taken into consideration, it will only indicate that there were certain disputes between the parties. However, that by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that accused had abetted the commission of suicide. Of course, these are matters to be identified during investigation. 13. Since prima facie there are no materials to assume that petitioners had abetted the deceased to commit suicide, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary. 14. In Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274] , it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than a prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation. 15. Since prima facie there are no materials to assume that the petitioners have abetted the deceased to commit suicide, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary. However, petitioners must subject themselves to interrogation under a limited custody. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions: (a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 22.07.2025 and 23.07.2025 from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm., and shall subject themselves to interrogation. (b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer. (c) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation. (d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence. (e) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.