JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 1 have gone through the papers placed before me, specially the First Information Report lodged and the Postmortem report. I have also gone through the order rejecting the bail which is in great details The learned Sessions Judge, Kota, though considered the arguments in details, but in my opinion, has failed to look into the law properly. For bringing the case within ambit of any section of the Indian Penal Code it is essential that the ingredients requited are satisfied. In Section 304 1PC there should be offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, death has to be proved homicidal, i.e., there must be positive evidence to exclude accidental or natural or suicidal death. Similarly for bringing the case within the ambit of S. 201 IPC it is essential that there should be evidence of causing the disappearance of the evidence placing drunker ed person outside the hospital and leaving him on the mercy of the God in gravest circumstances may be cruel or inhuman act. But certainly not causing the disappearance of evidence. The evidence quoted by the learned Sessions Judge at best is that he was made to drink heavily and thereafter he lost senses. Be that as it may, by itself may amount to any other offence but prima-facie neither S. 304 nor S. 201 1PC and worst is that even the son of the accused Prem Narain, a 15 years old boy has been implicated as an accused in the case. I consider this case to be fit for grant of bail. 2. I therefore, order that the accused petition namely, Prem Narain son of Shyam Narain and Bhadur Singh son of Udai Singh shall be released on bail provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-each to the satisfaction of learned trial court with stipulation to appear in that court on all subsequent dates of bearing and as and when called upon to do so.Bail granted. *******