JUDGMENT :

Ilesh J. Vora, J.

1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking prayer of anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11196030200868 of 2020 registered with Sayajiganj Police Station, District: Vadodara City for the offences under Sections 306, 386, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Sections 38, 40 and 42 of Gujarat Money Laundering Act, 2011.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Alpeshbhai Nanjibhai Patel-husband of the complainant decided to end his life and committed suicide on 06.10.2020 in Room No. 105 of Hotel Amity at Vadodara at Vadodara. The wife-complainant lodged an FIR against ten persons. The applicant herein has been arraigned as accused no. 9 in the alleged FIR. The investigating agency found one suicide note at the hotel room, wherein names of ten persons as referred in the FIR were disclosed by the deceased. It reveals from the suicide note that the persons named in the FIR are harassing the deceased and he is ending his life due to said harassment. It further reveals from the note that he had paid Rs. 2 crore 41 lakh to them, however, they are pressurizing for further amount and threatening him to kill also. It is specifically mentioned in the suicide note that for his act of suicide, his partner Narendrasinh Vaghela is responsible as he earned Rs. 2 crore and now he is not cooperating him and therefore, he decided to end his life.

In the aforesaid facts, the wife of the deceased lodged an FIR against the present applicant and other co-accused alleging that due to constant harassment on their part, her husband has committed suicide.

3. This Court has heard Mr. Kartik V. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Jaimin A. Mehta, learned advocate for the original complainant and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. It is the submission of Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant that if the averments made in the FIR as well as suicide note, are accepted in their entirety, then also, the applicant herein has not committed an act of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC, and, therefore, the provisions of Section 306 of IPC are not attracted. That the applicant herein never visited the house of the deceased. That the main allegation is against accused no. 3-Narendrasinh Vaghela who was partner of the deceased and he has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court. That deceased was in great distraction depression due to financial loss suffered by him, as a result, he committed suicide, as there was no any intention on the part of the applicant that deceased should commit suicide.

5. Mr. Jaimin Mehta, learned advocate for the original complainant would submits that the investigating agency has collected sufficient material in the form of C.D.R. and Audio call records would suggest involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence and therefore, the act of harassment pressurizing the deceased to repay the amount would fall under the definition of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC and prima-facie, case is made out under Section 306 of IPC against the present applicant.

In the aforesaid facts, Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the original complainant would submits that considering the gravity of the offence, custodial interrogation of the present applicant is necessary for further investigation and therefore, present application may not be entertained.

6. Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent-State adopting the arguments made by Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the original complainant would submits that the contents of the FIR would establish the ingredients of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC and therefore, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Before adverting to the issue raised by learned advocates for the respective parties, it is apt to refer the settled law with the subject to grant and/or refusal of anticipatory bail. I