Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel for first informant upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicants, accusations made coupled with the fact that applicant- Sushila Devi is lady and therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in provisio to Section 437 Cr.P.C., prima facie the death of deceased is a suicidal death, the autopsy surgeon who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased did not find any other external or internal ante-mortem injury on the body of deceased. Except for the ligature mark, the allegation made in the F.I.R. that physical and mental cruelty was committed upon the deceased with regard to demand of dowry are vague and bald allegations being devoid of material particulars, first informant in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not explained the same, therefore by virtue of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , the same are liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report under section 173 (2) has already been submitted, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, yet inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal and another Vs. The state of maharashtra and Another, 2023 Live law (SC) 373, 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, applicants have made out a case for bail.
