The court emphasized that sending a person to jail should be the last resort and considered the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail, focusing on the nature and gravity of the accusation and the possibility of fleeing from justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. With the consent, finally heard.

2. This is the second application filed by the applicants/accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 24/2020 registered at Police Station - GRP Line, District - Indore for the offences registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The previous application, M.Cr.C. No. 45468/2020 was dismissed on 19.11.2020 because it was arising out of an order of trial Court declining anticipatory bail at a time when even crime was not registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for all practical purposes, this is first anticipatory bail application before this Court. The Court below erred in declining anticipatory bail by order dated 27.02.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per prosecution story, deceased - Kailash committed suicide by leaving a suicide note wherein name of present applicants is mentioned. Reason assigned for suicide is non-payment of painting work by present applicants. By placing reliance on work agreement dated 01.08.2020 (Annexure-A/4), it is submitted that the said agreement was entered into between deceased - Kailash and Society through its President. The applicants are not the President of Society. Indeed he is holding the post of Treasurer which is clear from the letterhead of the Society (Annexure-A/3). As per this agreement, which was entered into on 01.08.2020, the entire work was required to be completed within five months. The deceased - Kailash committed suicide on 22.10.2020 i.e., much before completion of five months. The applicants have been falsely implicated. Merely because their names were their in the suicide note, it cannot be said that necessary ingredients for attracting Section 306 of the IPC are satisfied.

5. Reliance has been placed on Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v/s. The State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427, Chitresh Kumar Chopra v/s. State (Government of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, Sanju @ Sajay Singh Sengar v/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, Gangula Mohan Reddy v/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, M. Mohan v/s. The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626, Ramesh Kumar v/s. The State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, The State of Punjab v/s. Iqbal Singh & Others reported in (1991) 3 SCC 1, Devendra & Others v/s. The State of U.P. & Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495, Devendra Singh v/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 (3) MPHT 247, Dilawar Balu Kurane v/s. The State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 and Deepak v/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 767.

6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the anticipatory bail application on twin grounds. Firstly, the suicide note is a named one which is pregnant with applicants' name and secondly, deceased's wife in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that because of non-payment of dues to her husband by the present applicants, he committed suicide.

7. The Apex Court in (2011) 1 SCC 694, (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v/s. The State of Maharashtra) laid down following parameters for grant of anticipatory bail:-

112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused 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;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only wit