JUDGMENT 1. - This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of CrP.C. by Mr. M.K. Kaushik Advocate on behalf of the applicant Sanwal Ram pertaining to F.I.R. No. 59/2010 registered at police station Bandikui, District Dausa, for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material on record. 3. Larned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the deceased Padam sustained no injury and as per the Medical Board's report, he, in fact, died of cardiac failure. The learned counsel further contended that on the polling day, crowd of people ran and the deceased, who was heart patient fell on the ground and that was the reason that he expired. 'i he police has falsely collected the evidence and arbitrarily filed the charge-sheet against him in the court under Section 299 of Cr.PC. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted indulgence of pre-arrest bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has albeit, opposed the bail petition but utterly failed to exhibit any reason as to why the pre-arrest bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Tej Ram Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Bandikui is present in person in the court. He was asked as to how the offence under Section 304 of IPC is made out in the instant case? He simply submitted before the court that the petitioner and one more accused Hari Kishan were chasing the deceased. They gave lathi blow on his shoulder, as a result of which, he fell on the ground and died. Investigating Officer could not convince the Court as to how the offence under Section 304 of IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. He even could not explain the ingredients of offence under Section 304 of IPC. He is unable to distinguish between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He has failed to explain as to how this case falls in any exceptions as laid down under Section 300 of Cr.PC. 6. He even could not explain the ingredients of offence under Section 304 of IPC. He is unable to distinguish between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He has failed to explain as to how this case falls in any exceptions as laid down under Section 300 of Cr.PC. 6. Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Hari Kishan, intelligibly observed that the deceased sustained only one injury on his shoulder and this injury was not opined to be the cause of his death. No opinion with regard to injury was given by the Medical Board and the Medical Board gave opinion that prima facie cause of death was cardiac failure. I am of the firm view that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence under Section 304 of IPC is made out. Hence, in these circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted indulgence of pre-arrest bail and his bail petition is allowed. 7. Therefore, the SHO/I.O. of the Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Sanwal Ram Slo. Bhajanya Ram, in FIR No. 59/2010 registered for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC, he shall enlarge him on bail provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions : (i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required: (ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (iv) He will not commit any offence during the period of bail. Bail Application Allowed. *******