JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- The present order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M- 9916 of 2013 titled as “Jeet Singh vs. State of Haryana” and Criminal Misc. No.M-14518 of 2013 titled as “Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana” since both the petitions are arising out of the one and the same FIR and the prayer in both the petitions is for grant of bail to the petitioners. 2. The facts of the case are being narrated from the petition titled as “Jeet Singh vs. State of Haryana”. Prayer in these petitions are for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, Jeet Singh and Satbir Singh, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.226 dated 29.09.2012, registered at Police Station, Kherki, District Gurgaon. 3. As per prosecution, the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of Subhash, son of Mahender, on 29.09.2012 wherein, it was alleged that the petitioners went to the house of the complainant and took away Mahender Singh (since deceased), the father of the complainant. The complainant and other family members kept on waiting for Mahender Singh but he did not come. At about 9.00 p.m., the complainant received a call on mobile No.9650726826 from petitioner, Satbir Singh, that they had murdered the father of the complainant and his dead body was lying near the bus stand of village Bhagrola. After hearing the said mobile call, the complainant became perplexed and he along with his brother, Balwinder Singh, uncle Banwari, Vikas, Ranjit Singh and Sanjay reached the above-stated bus stand of village Bhagrola but he was not found there. After some time, younger brother of the complainant gave a call on the mobile of Jeet Singh and asked about the whereabouts of his father. Jeet Singh replied that they had murdered him (Mahender Singh). In spite of search operation throughout the night, Mahender Singh could not be traced out. On the next day, the complainant in the company of Gulvinder and Ranjit Singh went to the house of Jeet Singh and enquired about Mahender Singh but did not get any satisfactory reply. The complainant and his companions again went in search of Mahender Singh and found his dead body in front of a godown situated between village Kankrola and Bhagrola. The complainant and his companions again went in search of Mahender Singh and found his dead body in front of a godown situated between village Kankrola and Bhagrola. There were multiple injuries on the body of Mahender Singh, blood was oozing and the clothes were torn. It was further alleged that Satbir Singh and Jeet Singh had forcibly administered liquor and caused injuries to Mahender Singh. The motive for commission of murder was that Satbir Singh was nourishing a grudge against Mahender Singh due to family issues. After registration of the case, the Investigating Agency got the autopsy conducted from a team of doctors at the Govt. Hospital, Gurgaon. The doctors found a bruise of 3 x 2 cm above left upper lip which was dark raddish in colour; another defuse bruise was detected on the back near buttocks. The cause of death was to be given after receipt of the reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory and that of Histopathologist. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented and the petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that even if the whole case of the prosecution is taken at its face value then following three circumstances are emerging on record:- (i) Mahender Singh (deceased) was seen in the company of the petitioners on 28.09.2012; (ii) the petitioners admitted on the mobile calls that they had murdered Mahender Singh; and (iii) the recovery of the mobile phones and the call details thereof. 5. However, they further submit that in the present case, Mahender Singh had not died an unnatural death, therefore, no case for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, is made out. They have referred to the deposition of Dr.Deepak Mathur (PW-2) wherein in an answer to a question put by the learned Public Prosecutor, he categorically deposed that the death of Mahender Singh was natural. They have also referred to the opinions expressed by the doctors who had conducted the postmortem report. 6. Learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr.Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the complainant though opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners but could not substantiate the grounds on which it has to be declined. They have also referred to the opinions expressed by the doctors who had conducted the postmortem report. 6. Learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr.Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the complainant though opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners but could not substantiate the grounds on which it has to be declined. However, the learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that Dr.Deepak Mathur (PW-2) has categorically admitted that the death of Mahender Singh was natural. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 8. For holding a person guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, it is essentially to be proved that a culpable homicide was there. In the present case, it has come on record from the medical evidence that Mahender Singh had died a natural death. The material collected in the shape of last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession, the recovery of the call details and the mobile phones by itself would not be sufficient to hold the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. If the prosecution fails to prove the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, then there cannot be any material to hold the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201, IPC, since they had not screened any evidence. The petitioners are behind the bars from 29.09.2012. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has already been submitted and the prosecution evidence is going on. 9. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petitions are allowed. Petitioners-Jeet Singh s/o Phool Singh, r/o village Dhani Wajirpur, P.S., Sector 10, Gurgaon, and Satbir Singh, s/o Bharat Singh, r/o village Bas Padamka, P.S.Pataudi, District Gurgaon, are ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial of this case subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Gurgaon. 10. It is, however, made clear that in case either of the petitioners makes an attempt to win over or threaten the witnesses, in that eventuality, the prosecution/complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court. 11. 10. It is, however, made clear that in case either of the petitioners makes an attempt to win over or threaten the witnesses, in that eventuality, the prosecution/complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court. 11. It is also made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding these petitions for grant of bail and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 12. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. --------0.B.S.0------------