JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that charge-sheet under Section 302 Indian Penal Code has been tiled against the accused-petitioner and from the charge-sheet itself, it is clear that the present accused-petitioner has not committed offence under Section 302 IPC. The deceased had illicit relations with Durga and he has committed suicide. A case bearing inquest No. 6/2004 was registered and the same was enquired by the police. When accused-petitioner has seen his daughter Durga in compromising stage with the deceased, in sudden provocation, accused-petitioner has done this act in alternate he argued that the deceased was having 'Kulhari' in his hand and he tried to attack the accused-petitioner and therefore in self defence, he has done this act. Learned counsel further states that the accused-petitioner has not inflicted any injury on any vital part of the body of the deceased. Cause of death has been shown as internal haemorrhage. He has inflicted only injury over the chest. lie has never intended to cause the particular injury to the lungs. Even knowledge cannot be attributed to this case. Therefore, he argued that looking to all facts and circumstances of the case, this case does not travel beyond Section 325 IPC. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further states accused-petitioner is in jail and trial of the case is likely to take a long time, therefore, accused-petitioner may be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this bail application and drawn my attention towards the statements of Nanu Lal, Babu Khan, Havwa, Bhanwar Das, Sawa Ram etc. recorded during the investigation. It is alleged that they have said in their statements that accused-Shesharam (petitioner) pursued the deceased and inflicted injuries to the deceased. It is further stated that 'lathi' has also been recovered at his instance, therefore, accused-petitioner may not be released on bail. 4. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by both the parties and also gone through the charge-sheet as well as inquest report No. 6/2004 under which statement of the accused-petitioner has been recorded. In this case, no injury was caused on vital part of the body and cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to internal bleeding. 4. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by both the parties and also gone through the charge-sheet as well as inquest report No. 6/2004 under which statement of the accused-petitioner has been recorded. In this case, no injury was caused on vital part of the body and cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to internal bleeding. At this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case whether it is the case of sudden provocation or self defence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner She sharam S/o Dalaji Sargara be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. *******