coupled with the fact that prima facie the death of the deceased is a suicidal death, the bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that autopsy surgeon who conducted the autopsy of the body of the deceased did not find any external ante-mortem injury of the deceased except the ligature mark, the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings had occurred after expiry of 4 years and 8 months from the date of marriage, prima facie the allegations made in the F.I.R., with reference to the demand of additional dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon the deceased on account of non-fulfilment of the same are not worthy of reliance, inasmuch as the same have not been substantiated by material particulars, the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also does not fully explain the manner of demand of alleged demand of dowry or commission of cruetly upon the deceased, inspite of the fact that the charge sheet has been submitted, and therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial, the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, 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 comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
