Judgment ( 1 ) ORDER :- This bail petition has been preferred under S. 438, Cr. P. C. by the accused-petitioner in Criminal Case No. 448/97 arising out of investigation of FIR No. 146/96. P. S. , Mandore, Jodhpur, after similar application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur vide his order dated 27-1-1998. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is Head of the Prakash Ashram situated opposite Railway Station, Mandore and, Ashok Kumar, since deceased, was disciple of the accused-petitioner who was also living under the guidance and guardianship of the accused-petitioner and was being educated about various religious tenets etc. at Haridwar, Rishikesh etc. who had adopted his new name as Akhand Chaitanya. Lastly, on his return from Rishikesh where too he had gone from Jodhpur a few days prior to 6-7-1996, it is alleged that the accused-petitioner who was annoyed with the deceased and he did not want to allow the deceased to stay with him at the Prakash Ashram, Mandore and on his insistence it is further alleged that he administered some poisonous insecticide by mixing the same in a lemon-squash which was administered to the deceased and, as a result. Akhand Chaitanya died. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted and, lastly, it was confirmed that the deceased died because of consumption of poisonous insecticide. The body of the deceased was taken to Rishikesh and his dead body was, according to prevalent last rites submerged into the water. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Narsingh, who is real brother of the deceased, lodged a criminal complaint under Ss. 302 and 201, I. P. C. in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur which was forwarded under S. 156 (3), Cr. P. C. for registration and investigation of a criminal case whereat FIR No. 146/96 under Ss. 302 and 201, I. P. C. was registered and investigation was completed resulting in filing of final report on 31-7-1996 but, however, being aggrieved, on the protest from the side of the complainant, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of offences under Ss. 302 and 201, I. P. C. was registered and investigation was completed resulting in filing of final report on 31-7-1996 but, however, being aggrieved, on the protest from the side of the complainant, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of offences under Ss. 302 and 201, I. P. C. vide his order dated 1-12-1996 and, consequently, the accused-petitioner was ordered to be summoned by issuance of a warrant of arrest to stand trial and hence, after similar bail petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, this petition has been preferred. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and so also the learned P. P. for the State besides the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused and considered the investigation record as made available by the learned P. P. in addition to the documents and material that has been made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing and considered the same. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, while taking through the statements of various witnesses including Narsingh complainant, Chetanpuri etc. as well as various letters written by the deceased prior to his death and addressed to the accused-petitioner and so also the photos of last rites having been performed at Rishikesh, has submitted that the allegations of the FIR are false and concocted as a result of conspiracy entered into between the relation of the deceased as well as Chetanpuri who had an axe to grind against the accused-petitioner in an attempt to displace the accused-petitioner from the principality as Head of the Prakash Ashram. The alleged statement of Chetanpuri that finding Akhand Chaitanya vomiting, on enquiry, he was told by Akhand Chaitanya that the accused-petitioner gave him lemon-squash to drink and, on its drinking, he was vomiting and meanwhile froths started coming out from the mouth of Akhand Chaitanya and he became unconscious and he died after some time, are wholly concocted and afterthought. Admittedly, the death of the deceased occurred on 14-6-1996 while the present complaint on which the FIR is based, was filed on 6-7-1996 while the complainant as well as Chetanpuri were at Jodhpur and even Chetanpuri appeared before the police to depose against one Panna Lal being proceeded under S. 107, Cr. Admittedly, the death of the deceased occurred on 14-6-1996 while the present complaint on which the FIR is based, was filed on 6-7-1996 while the complainant as well as Chetanpuri were at Jodhpur and even Chetanpuri appeared before the police to depose against one Panna Lal being proceeded under S. 107, Cr. P. C. by the police of Mandore Police Station and he did not divulge this information to any police officer. Accordingly, on the basis of different photos, letters that were addressed by the deceased to the petitioner and so also from the statements of Prithvi Singh, Narayan Mali, Manak Mali, Nitya Nand, Bhagirath, Madan Singh, and affidavit of Ram Chandra Deovra who is real brother-in-law (gainer) of the deceased etc. , it has been submitted that since it was the accused-petitioner who immediately arranged transportation and the deceased was taken to Gandhi Hospital wherefrom on account of his death, after inquest and post-mortem of the dead body, the accused-petitioner arranged for transportation of the dead body for being submerged in Ganges water according to customary ritual performance and disposal of the dead body of Akhand Chaitanya and, even after his death, certain death ceremonies were performed by the accused-petitioner in which some of the close relations of the deceased also participated and none aroused any suspicion about the role and conduct of the accused-petitioner. The deceased was most liked and preferred disciple of the petitioner and he had no grudge or any motive to have done the deceased to death from which he does not stand to benefit and, on the contrary, Chetanpuri did have a very strong ulterior motive to damage and remove the accused-petitioner from his path towards the principal seat of the Ashram and, therefore, as a result of deep-rooted conspiracy, a belated complaint was lodged resulting in giving Final Report by the police but, any how, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and looking to the status, nature of the allegations as well as the conduct and the evidence so collected, in the aforesaid circumstances, there is every warrant for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner who is innocent and otherwise it shall do a great damage to the reputation and future of the accused-petitioner not to be refurbished even after his exoneration in case he is forced to stand trial. Accordingly, his submission is that there is every justification for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the complainant, as also supported by the learned P. P. , has submitted that, of late, since the deceased wanted to pursue his higher studies and since he was also a very bright and well versed in religious tenets and knowledge which compelled the accused-petitioner to envy with him and, therefore, the accused-petitioner was never reconciled to the wish of the deceased to learn higher and higher. Resultantly, though the deceased had gone to Rishikesh for 4 or 5 days before the incident but thereat the Managers were instructed not to allow the deceased to learn and carry forward his learning pursuit and, so being frustrated, the deceased returned to Prakash Ashram on the fateful date and it further annoyed the accused-petitioner and he did not allow the deceased to either remain at the Ashram or to have his boarding and lodging and when the deceased insisted upon making entreaties before the petitioner, the latter secretly administered him lemon-squash with insecticide poison resulting in death of the deceased. Besides, though there is no documentary evidence but on the basis of statements of Narsingh, Laxmi Narain, Rameshwar, Nitya Nand etc. Besides, though there is no documentary evidence but on the basis of statements of Narsingh, Laxmi Narain, Rameshwar, Nitya Nand etc. , it has been contended that the accused-petitioner was insisting upon and always forcing the deceased and so also his family members to procure and arrange various valuable articles as well as huge cash amount on various pretexts as is alleged in the complaint and this demand was being fulfilled partly and since the accused-petitioner, of late, had started showing signs of hatred and neglect and, lastly, in the aforesaid circumstances, looking to the conduct of the accused-petitioner preceding the incident and, for the present, there being any hardly justification for disbelieving the statement of Chetanpuri whose presence is most natural and, besides, the facts and circumstances that are borne out of the complaint lodged by none else but by Narsingh brother of the deceased and the circumstances just preceding and subsequent to the death of the deceased as well at the time of his death lend corroboration to the medical evidence that the deceased had died of poison and, at present, there are strong circumstances indicating towards the guilt of the accused-petitioner that he alone had administered poison to the deceased resulting in his death and hence it warrants no grant of anticipatory bail. ( 7 ) I have gone through the statements of all these witnesses and besides I have also considered the medical evidence in addition to the affidavit of Ram Chandra who is none else but the real brother-in-law of the deceased (gainer) and the statements of aforesaid witnesses specially those of Chetanpuri, Bhanwarlal, Prithvi Singh etc. ( 8 ) THE facts as are borne out of the investigation record resulting in taking of cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused-petitioner, it is undeniable that the deceased became disciple of the accused-petitioner about 8 years prior to his death and the long correspondence in the hand of the deceased addressed to the accused -petitioner shows that the deceased had a great faith and utmost respect for the accused-petitioner and the latter had been encouraging him throughout. However, though there is nothing on record from the side of the deceased or any of his companions or associates excepting Chetanpuri who is competitor of the accused-petitioner that, of late, since the deceased wanted to pursue higher religious studies at Rishikesh to which the accused-petitioner was not reconciled and the letters so addressed by the deceased to the accused-petitioner during some period preceding his death do reveal that the deceased was mentally disturbed and living under great mental tension and stress. This is also undisputable fact that the death occurred due to consumption/administration of insecticide poison and so the death of the deceased is unnatural, being either suicidal or homicidal. Death occurred on 14-6-1996 whereas Chetanpuri as well as Narsingh and all the members of family of the deceased and other local residents did not arouse any suspicion against the conduct of the accused-petitioner till the complaint was lodged before the trial Court as late as on 6-7-1996 by Narsingh. After investigation, the police did not find any proof in regard to commission of murder of the deceased and the accused-petitioner, being liable therefor, resulting in filing of a Final Report. However, on the protest from the side of the complainant, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, proceeded to observe that there were grounds to proceed against the accused-petitioner resulting in order of cognizance warranting this petition of the accused-petitioner. ( 9 ) FROM the total sum of evidence collected during the course of investigation and, besides, the documents that are available on record, though, at present, warrant no observation or finding as regards to commission of murder of the deceased or the same being a result of suicidal act on the part of the deceased himself or, though it is not so alleged by the prosecution or complainant side from any quarter for commission of suicide by the deceased but, for the sole purpose of disposal of this petition and having regard to the fact whether there is any warrant for arrest of the accused-petitioner in view of the aforesaid controversy about the involvement of the accused-petitioner, presently, in totality, resultant conclusion warrants that the accused-petitioner be granted anticipatory bail since, in the aforesaid circumstances, no useful purpose shall be served by arresting the accused-petitioner even if he is required to stand trial for alleged commission of the murder. Besides, any detailed or nice appreciation and sifting of the evidence that has come on record in view of the rival contentions raised from both sides, is likely, in all probabilities to prejudice the ultimate trial of the accused-petitioner which further demands judicial restraint in this regard. ( 10 ) ON the basis of above discussion, this petition is accepted and it is ordered that in the event of appearance/surrender by the accused-petitioner before the trial Court within a period of 10 days from the date of this order in the aforesaid case, the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail on his execution of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate undertaking to appear before the enquiry/trial Court as and when required without any fault. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the learned Magistrate within the aforesaid stipulated period, thereafter, and not before it the learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to issue warrant of arrest afresh against the accused-petitioner to procure his appearance and the petitioner shall not be entitled to any such relief thereafter in case of non-compliance of this order. The petitioner shall also further give an undertaking before the trial Court that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence while on bail and in case he does so in an attempt to frustrate the trial pending against the accused-petitioner, on its satisfaction, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the accused-petitioner and take him into custody without further reference to this Court. ( 11 ) THIS petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly. .