JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that he has been implicated falsely. No F.I.R. has been lodged by the relatives of the deceased. Even the father and other relatives have stated nothing against the present petitioner in the inquiry conducted under Section 176 Cr.P.C., by the S.D.M. The S.D.M. has lodged report after a long delay. The father of the deceased and other witnesses have not stated anything against the present petitioner. Per contra, father of the deceased, Balkrishna, has. stated that the deceased was leaving happily at her matrimonial house. The present petitioner has been involved only on the suspicion. Hence, he should be released on bail. 3. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant is that doctors have opined that this is a case of homicidal death and drawn my attention towards the statements of Dr. Suva Lal and Dr. Pratibha Sanadhya, who were the members of the Medical Board, who conducted postmortem. 4. But the postmortem report goes to show that cause of death is asphyxia. The doctors have not opined that the death has caused due to strangulation or it is homicidal. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that injuries have been found on neck and arm of the deceased but in spite of this, the postmortem report suggests the cause of death as asphyxia. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have also stated regarding disclosure statement of the present petitioner but that is not admissible as the same was given to the police officer. 5. Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, looking at the fact that father and other relatives of the deceased have. stated nothing against the present petitioner and that Sharda Devi has stated that the deceased died due to hanging, and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the same is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Sushil @ Monti S/o Shri Iswar Dayal shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 31/2012 P.S. Kotwali, District Chittorgarh, provided he executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. Accordingly, the same is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Sushil @ Monti S/o Shri Iswar Dayal shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 31/2012 P.S. Kotwali, District Chittorgarh, provided he executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court n each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.Bail application allowed. *******