JUDGMENT

Dipankar Datta, J.—Apprehending arrest in connection with Tarakeswar Police Station F.I.R. No. 89 of 2017 dated 24.04.2017 under Sections 384/306/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid criminal misc cases for pre-arrest directions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Both the applications are taken up together since the same arise out of the same F.I.R.

3. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Bithika Jana has contended that she is in no way connected with the alleged offences and she has been falsely implicated. He has further contended that Bithika Jana never demanded any money from the deceased and she never abetted the deceased to commit suicide and accordingly there is absolutely no case against her under Section 384/306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also contended that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, Bithika Jana may be favoured with an order of anticipatory bail.

4. Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Maharaj Nag contended that there is absolutely no allegation against the present petitioner with regard to abetment for committing suicide by the victim and accordingly, the prosecution could not make out any case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against him (Maharaj Nag). Mr. Majumder further contended that the petitioner is a leader of a political party and the allegation regarding extortion of money from the deceased has been made out of political rivalry and only in order to put the petitioner (Maharaj Nag) behind the bar.

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Majumder has relied on the decisions reported in (2015) 9 SCC 639 (State of Kerala Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair & Ors.) and (2017) 1 SCC 433 (Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab).

6. It is submitted by Mr. Majumder that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and it also requires an active act or direct act which would lead the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she commits suicide. Secondly, it is imperative to show the abetment, intention and involvement of the accused to aid or to instigate commission of suicide.

7. Mr. Majumder also contended that the prosecution could not collect any evidence to show the active or direct involvement of Maharaj Nag in abetment or instigation by him in the commission of suicide by the deceased.

8. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State raised vehement objection to the prayer for bail of both the petitioners on the ground that Bithika Jana in fact falsely reported to Maharaj Nag regarding sexual assault on her person by the deceased and pursuant to such request of Bithika Jana, Maharaj Nag forced the deceased to sign on a confessional statement admitting his guilt and thereafter extorted the deceased to pay a sum of Rs.1,00000/-. The deceased was compelled to pay Rs.50,000/- on the spot and thereafter Maharaj Nag had been putting immense pressure on the deceased to pay the remaining part of the amount failing which he would circulate the confessional statement of the deceased through electronic media. The hapless victim was compelled to sign on a confessional statement, paid Rs.50,000/- to Maharaj Nag and thereafter finding no other alternative and in view of continuous pressure, committed suicide.

9. Mr. Banerjee has taken us through the case diary in order to show the involvement of the petitioners as well as the progress of investigation.

10. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary.

11. Bithika Jana instead of resorting to take the help of the police authority had lodged a complaint before Maharaj Nag stating, inter-alia, that she was sexually violated on 15.04.2017 in a medicine shop by the deceased. She had also written to the po