ORDER : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’). 2. Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.312 of 2025 of Upputhara Police Station, Idukki, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1) and 108 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. According to the prosecution, on 10.04.2025, the de facto complainant’s nephew caused the death of his two children and committed suicide along with his wife and the accused are alleged to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide and thereby committed the offences alleged. 4. I have heard Sri.C.C.Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. Athul Poulose, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 5. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that petitioner has no involvement in the alleged crime and, therefore, he ought to be granted anticipatory bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary. 7. Petitioner is the Managing Director of a finance company. The deceased Sajeev had taken a loan of Rupees Three lakhs five thousand from one of the branches of the said Company. The loan was allegedly availed for purchasing an autorickshaw. Due to the failure of the deceased to repay the loan, staff of the company allegedly demanded repayment. Before committing suicide, the said Sajeev had allegedly written a suicide note, wherein reference is made to the establishment of the petitioner and stated that they had compelled him to repay the liability and that he was even threatened with attachment of his property in case of default. In the suicide note it is further stated that due to the said threats, he suffered mental trauma and is hence taking the extreme step. There are references to other persons also, who had harassed the petitioner. 8. However, on going through the records of the case, prima facie it is not evident as to any specific instigation committed by the petitioner for abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased and his wife. 9. The offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of BNS requires the ingredients of Section 45(a) BNS to be satisfied. 8. However, on going through the records of the case, prima facie it is not evident as to any specific instigation committed by the petitioner for abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased and his wife. 9. The offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of BNS requires the ingredients of Section 45(a) 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 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 will not be attracted. The crucial ingredient of the offence of abetment of suicide is that 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. 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. 11. In a recent decision in Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police Kancheepuram District [ 2025 INSC 607 ] , it was observed in paragraph 15 as follows: “The requirement of abetment under S.107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under S.306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. ( M. Arjunan V. State represented by its inspector of Police , (2019) 3 SCC 315 ) 16. Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana , (2019) 17 SCC 301 , it has been observed in para 16 as follows: "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. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of S.306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self - esteem and self - respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased." 12. In the instant case, except for the suicide note, prima facie there are no materials to indicate that accused had committed the offence of abetment of suicide by the deceased. Even if the suicide note is taken into consideration, it will only indicate that there were certain demands made by some persons to clear liabilities due from the deceased. However, that by itself cannot prima facie lead to the conclusion that accused had abetted the commission of suicide. Of course, those are all matters to be identified during investigation. 13. Even if the suicide note is taken into consideration, it will only indicate that there were certain demands made by some persons to clear liabilities due from the deceased. However, that by itself cannot prima facie lead to the conclusion that accused had abetted the commission of suicide. Of course, those are all matters to be identified during investigation. 13. Since prima facie there are no materials to indicate that petitioners had abetted the deceased to commit, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary. However, petitioner must subject himself to interrogation. 14. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail. However, since the investigation has only commenced, petitioner must appear for interrogation for the purpose of completing the investigation. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions: (a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 12.08.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation. (b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer. (c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation. (d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. (e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail. (f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction. 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.