Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that applicant is mother-inlaw of deceased, therefore by virtue of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail, bonafide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark, no other ante-mortem injury was found on the body of deceased, prima facie, the death of deceased is a suicidal death, the allegations made in the F.I.R. with regard to demand of additional dowry are devoid of material particulars as the same have not been evidenced either in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, as such, the same are liable to be ignored by this Court, the judgement of Suprme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others, police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystalized, inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial, the period of incarceration undergone, the clean antecedents of applicant, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
