Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, coupled with the fact that the only evidence that has come against applicant is that he was seen coming out from the house of prosecutrix, up to this stage there is nothing on record to show that applicant has abeted, instigated or conspired in the commission of crime in question, from the record it cannot be inferred that the deceased had committed suicide on account of an immediate act of the applicant, the bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark, no other antemortem injury was found by the autopsy surgeon on the body of the deceased which fact is evident from the post-mortem report of the deceased, the medical evidence does not support the FIR, abetment is a question of fact and therefore subject to trial evidence, the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, yet in spite of above the learned A.G.A. nor the learned counsel for first informant could point out from the record any such circumstance necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 Livelaw SC 373 (Paragraph 5) , the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, 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 comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
