gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that prima-facie the death of deceased is a suicidal death, except for the ligature mark, no other external or internal ante-mortem injury was found on the body of deceased, applicant is working as a Sepoy in the Indian Army, therefore, the allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of motorcycle (Bullet) is not worthy of reliance inasmuch as, it is devoid of material particulars, with regard to the manner of demand of dowry and also the manner in which, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon the deceased, as per the suicidal note of the deceased, no allegation regarding demand of additional dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon deceased is pointing out, as per the allegation made in the suicidal note, the case in hand is a case of suicidal death, however, the learned A.G.A. could not establish from the record the element of instigation, abetment or conspiracy against the applicant, the applicant is an army personnel, the learned A.G.A. could not point out from the record that applicant was present at the time and place of occurrence, in the absence of above, the prosecution has failed to discharge its primary burden regarding the presence of the applicant at the time and place of the occurrence, in view of above, the reciprocal liability of the applicant to explain the manner of occurrence on account of being an inmate of the house does not arise, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite 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 judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5) , therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
