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 and coupled with the fact that the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceeding is admitted to the parties, inasmuch as, cross-first information reports have been lodged from both the sides, there are injured from both the sides, the present case is a case of grave and sudden provocation and same is not the outcome of any calculated mens-rea or pre-planned act of the applicant and other co-accused, in view of above the case in hand is covered under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC, the offence complained of thus shall be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the same is prima facie not likely to travel beyond Section 304 Part-II IPC, the primary issue to be decided is as to who is the aggressor, the said issue can more appropriately be answered only during the course of trial, however upto this stage no such evidence has been discovered by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the aggressor in the crime can be conclusively concluded, the author of the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased has neither been disclosed in the FIR nor specified in the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC, the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant 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 any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of 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.
