The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and the need for evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The judgment also emphasized the importance of assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial to determine whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had induced the victim to commit suicide.

JUDGMENT

S. K. Panigrahi, J. - The present petitioner has filed the instant Anticipatory Bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Burla P.S. Case No.251 of 2021 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M, Sambalpur. The petitioner herein has been accused in connection with alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Prior to the present Application, the petitioner approached the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in ABLAPL No.81 of 2021, wherein vide order dated 24.05.2021, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said pre-arrest bail petition.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the present case are that the deceased one Mr. Dinabandhu Mishra was serving as a Technical Assistant (Computer) on contractual basis at Sambalpur University for about 27 years. The petitioner herein was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of Sambalpur University on 25.01.2021 and has been discharging his duties and responsibility since then. On 20.04.2021, the deceased wrote a letter to Registrar, Sambalpur University wherein he stated that the petitioner had called him on 15.04.2021 to question him regarding leaking of some information to the press about burning of cut wood. Further, the letter states that the petitioner had called upon the deceased on the unfortunate day of 20.04.2021 wherein the deceased claimed that the petitioner had used filthy language and made false allegations against him regarding theft of some University property without any basis. The deceased also claimed that the behaviour of the Vice-Chancellor is not tolerable to him and therefore he would commit suicide and upon his death, the petitioner, one Mr. Abinash Kar and Prof. Biswajit Satpathy are to be held responsible.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these facts and circumstances do not, in any way, indicate that the alleged act would constitute abetment to commit suicide. The ingredients to constitute the said offences are completely absent in the present case. He also contended that there is complete absence of any sort of instigation or any positive move on the part of the petitioner causing the deceased to commit suicide. Although the incident is mournful and very unfortunate, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was also submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on the ground that he has abetted the suicide committed by the deceased. It is also argued that the ingredient of abetment as laid down in Section 107 is completely absent in this case and as such Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 is not attracted. Lastly, during the course of arguments learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that the deceased on an earlier occasion on 25.03.2014 had given the representation to Sri S.C. Jamir, the then Governor of Orissa, threatening for self-immolation if his service was not regularised immediately. Further, on 7.09.2015 he sent a representation to the then Vice-Chancellor of Sambalpur University stating therein that he wanted to end his life. In yet another letter dated 24.07.2018 addressed to the then Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Dipak Behera, the deceased had categorically stated that he was totally in an unbalanced state of mind and he reminded about his repeated message describing his mental status through Whatsapp and threatened self-immolation. Thus, in the past, he had frequently threatened the authority to commit suicide which reflects his vulnerable state of mind and conduct in general. Hence, the petitioner cannot be attributed to the alleged abatement of suicide. This Court should not be persuaded by the alarming and hyperbolic verbiage used in the media and by the informant. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail may be allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for th