mortal in nature. Additionally, It was found that there are no grave external injures present on the body of the deceased. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the 161 Cr.P.C statement of one Menaka Mohanty, who happens to be the sister-in-law of the deceased. In her statement, the above named witness has clearly stated that the Petitioner and his wife (now deceased) used to get into fights while they were staying together. She has further stated that the deceased used to come to the house of the above named witness and narrate the entire incident of assault by her husband. She has also stated that the quarrel between them was with regard to the sale of goat. After the quarrel the petitioner went off to a padyatra, and upon returning, the Petitioner found that his wife is lying dead in his house. Thereafter, the husband of the above named witness went to the house of the Petitioner and found that the wife of the Petitioner is lying dead. In the statement, she has also stated that the deceased was suffering from High Blood Pressure. By referring to the aforesaid materials on record, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that prima facie it appears that the deceased died due to brain stroke and the Petitioner had no role to play in such event. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further contended that the Petitioner is a local resident and there is no chance to abscond from natural of justice. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the bail application of the Petitioner on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are very serious in nature. He further contended that although the trial has not yet commenced, there is sufficient material to implicate the present Petitioner in the alleged crime. However, learned A.S.C. did not dispute the post mortem report
