orders. Thereafter, matter appeared on 21.11.2024 and on submissions by learned APP, the Investigating Officer was directed to remain present. It was noticed that there was mere telephonic information to learned APP and no papers were passed on to learned APP in support of non-cooperation by applicant. Resultantly, on 25.11.2024, Investigating Officer, who was found to be subsequent Investigating Officer, remained present and on his submissions, applicant was made to attend the police station. To that extent, learned APP has already agreed that applicant did appear in the police station and attended Investigating Officer and that inquiry was made with him and even his mobile has been seized. However, learned APP further emphasized that investigation with regard to the names of the ladies, which are appearing on the alleged suicide note, is still incomplete. But as stated above, learned APP fairly conceded that applicant attended police station and his mobile handset, which new Investigating Officer was keen to secure, is already seized. Therefore, admittedly when there is cooperation by attending police station and apparently when no efforts were done previously by first Investigating Officer to seize the mobile handset, which is now seized, and when there was no resistance before this Court by prosecution to the very modification of condition, very condition of attending police station was relaxed. Now, fresh attempt is made by prosecution to
