ORDER : RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. 1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”), the applicant has prayed to release on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11198035241020 of 2024 registered with Mahuva Police Station, Bhavnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of IPC . 2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is serving as Assistant Branch Manager, in the Bhavnagar District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and he has nothing to do with the offence. The allegation against the present applicant is that the brother of the victim [deceased] has filed complaint, wherein, it is alleged that the present applicant has taken advance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the victim towards the education of his daughter. The complaint is filed against two office bearers viz. Hamir Bhaliya and Naresh Bhaliya of Khadasliya Anganka Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. and at the relevant point of time, the finance was obtained by the society from the bank and the present applicant has pressurized the deceased for issuance of the certificate from the Mandali. It is alleged that the victim i.e. deceaed has lended the loan amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards the education of daughter of present applicant and though demanded for repayment, but the said amount was not repaid. Even otherwise, the members of the society has not paid the amount of loan to the society, though straightway issued ‘no due certificate’ to the concerned farmers. The complaint is registered on 31/12/2024 and the alleged incident took place between 18/08/2022 and 18/08/2023 and the deceased succumbed to the death on 17/10/2023. During the aforesaid period, no any allegation levelled against the present applicant and no any dying declaration of victim is recorded. Even otherwise, the applicant has performed his duties in his official capacity and the applicant was serving as a Secretary in the society and during the audit, many irregularities were come to the notice of the authorities and the authority has also initiated statutory proceedings under Section-93 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act . He submits that due to under pressure, the deceased has committed suicide. He submits that due to under pressure, the deceased has committed suicide. Nothing is recovered and discovered from the applicant and therefore, no custodial interrogation is required as requested to allow the present application. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State as well as learned advocate for the complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. They have submitted that the present applicant has received the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards loan from the deceased and for that, the deceased has made a note, which was sent for FSL and the FSL report proved the hand-writing of the deceased. In the said note, the name of the present applicant is clearly spelt out and also, mentioned that the applicant has received the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the deceased. He has received the said amount directly on behalf of the society and straight way issued ‘no due certificate’ to the farmers. Learned APP further submits that due to instigation and constant harassment and pressurized the deceased, which leads the involvement of the applicant in the irregularities and misappropriation of the amount of society. Due to such pressure, the victim has committed suicide. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as similar types of the offence is registered against applicant and same mode operandi was adopted in the year 2001 and complaint is registed. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application. 4. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application. 4. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him/her so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects. (1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty; (2) Applicant is a Assistant Branch Manager, in the Bhavnagar District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the allegation levelled against him is that he has received an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the victim, but the said transaction is private in nature. Even if we assume for the sake of argument , the applicant has received the money and not repaid the same to the victim, the victim has no option, but to commit suicide. In absence of any proximate cause of instigation, which cannot be termed as instigation; (3) No case of custodial interrogation made out by the prosecution. (4) In the past, the offence registered against the present applicant, in which, the present applicant is acquitted by the trial court in Criminal Case No.706 of 2007. (5) So far as suicide note is concerned, during period between August, 2022 to August 2023, no any statement or dying declaration is recorded, which reveals the involvement of the present applicant except the present applicant has taken the amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. (5) So far as suicide note is concerned, during period between August, 2022 to August 2023, no any statement or dying declaration is recorded, which reveals the involvement of the present applicant except the present applicant has taken the amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. In the one page note, it is stated that an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- is yet to be recovered from the present applicant and prior to that, the names of accused nos.1 and 2 is mentioned and at sr.no.3, it is stated that since last one year, constant pressure of office bearers of the Bhavnagar District Co-operative Bank Ltd. saying the aforesaid facts, no any proximate cause and even during the statutory audit, irregularities were came to the notice of authority and the authority has issued notice to the victim under Section-93 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act . 5. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 76 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for section 306 IPC [Now, section 108 read with section 45 of BNS,2023] to be attracted. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution- The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306 . 6. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 , I am inclined to allow the present application. 7. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 , I am inclined to allow the present application. 7. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11198035241020 of 2024 registered with Mahuva Police Station, Bhavnagar , the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 17/02/2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change her/his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; (g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail; (h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.- 8. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.