ORDER

With the consent, finally heard.

This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.304/2023, registered at Police Station Damoh District Damoh (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Section 306 OF IPC, R/W Section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST of Prevention of Atrocities Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Krishna @

Krishnabhushan committed suicide on 11.5.2023. The allegation against the present applicant is based on a suicide note. It is submitted that even the contents of suicide-note does not bring the case of the present applicant within the ambit of section 306 of IPC. If the deceased was working in the shop of the applicant and was not getting the salary, the applicant cannot be held guilty for suicide of the deceased person. As per suicide-note even if the applicant has taken gold chain of deceased and made a false allegation against the deceased, it cannot be a reason to attract Section 306 of IPC. Reliance is placed on an order passed in M.Cr.C. No. 22762 of 2021 (Rajesh Vs. State of M.P.)

(Indore Bench).

The prayer is opposed by learned Government Advocate for grant of anticipatory bail.

I have perused the case diary and the suicide note. This Court in the case of Rajesh (supra) recorded as under:- Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution story, deceased Nandkishore took loan from applicant and could not repay the same. It is alleged that deceased was being harassed by applicant and other persons from whom loan was taken and could not be repaid. Hence, applicant was arraigned as accused for allegedly committing offence under Section 306/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that suicide note shows that the only allegation mentioned is that deceased had taken loan from various persons and those persons used to harass him. He submits that if the applicant asked the deceased to repay the loan and in turn, he committed suicide, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that applicant was guilty of abettment. Reliance is placed on 2019 (1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 265 (Goutam Singh Kargliya and another vs. State of MP and Anr.), 2019(1) MPLJ (Cri.) 226 (Mayank Sharma and others vs. State of MP and Anr.), 2008(2) M.P.H.T. 160 (Babbi @ Jitendra and others vs. State of MP) and 2015(1) M.P.H.T. 75 (Vivek Kumar Jain and another vs. State of MP and another). In view of the aforesaid, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. The prayer is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer. He provided the copy of suicide note to the Court for its perusal. Prima facie suicide note shows that the applicant gave loan to the deceased. Few more persons also gave loan to him. The deceased could not repay the loan and under the said circumstances, he committed suicide. In the case of Goutam Singh Kargliya (supra), the co-accused was married to the deceased victim. Although there were frequent quarrels, their overall relations were cordial. In a fit of rage and anger, she asked her husband to go and die. The Court opined that this alone would not amount to abetment of suicide because said words were not followed by any positive action on the part of accused to indicate that they had any intention behind saying that deceased should go and die. In the case of Mayank Sharma (supra), the applicants belong to an organization and demanded money back from the deceased. Deceased committed suicide. It was held that demanding money is not wrong on the part of applicants and no case is made out for attracting Section 306 of IPC. Similarly, in Babbi @ Jitendra (supra), this Court opined that “instigate†means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, urge or encourage for doing a particular act. The money was demanded by accused Babbi and since it was not returned, the borrower was assaulted by Babbi and other person. The deceased thereafter committed suicide by drowning himself in a well. The court opined that basic ingre