JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. This is an application under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with C.T. Case No. 2673 of 2012 arising out of Balasore Town P.S. Case No. 430 of 2012 and CID CB P.S. Case No.68 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore for the alleged offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The factual matrix leading to the prosecution case is that informant Sk. Goffar has three sons. It is alleged inter alia that on 24/25.11.2012 at about 3.00 A.M. the present petitioner being the Inspector-in-Charge of Balasore Town Police Station went with 15 police personnel to the house of Sk. Goffar to execute the warrant of arrest issued against Sk. Saddique who is the grand-son of informant Sk. Goffar. The petitioner and other police personnel after breaking open the front gate and the iron grill gate in the backside, entered into the house and abused Sk. Saddique and his brother in obscene languages. The police had gone illegally to execute the warrant of arrest issued for minor offences in dead of the night. The petitioner and other police personnel poured kerosene on the body of Sk. Saddique, his brother Sk. Sabir and set them on fire. They also allegedly assaulted them by lathi and thereafter they took both of them in a police jeep to the local hospital, where they were referred to the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. During such raid, the police removed a cash of Rs.20,000/-, a gold necklace, mobile telephone and wrist watch from the house of the informant. On the next day while the said Sk. Saddique and Sk. Sahid were undergoing treatment they succumbed to the burn injuries. Although the death occurred on 25.11.2012, the informant has lodged the F.I.R. on 26.11.2012 at 9 AM in Balasore Town Police station. Few days thereafter the C.I.D. Crime Branch took up the investigation of the case. 3. During investigation it was revealed that P.S. Case No.429 of 2012 had been registered against the deceased persons Sk. Sabir and Sk. Although the death occurred on 25.11.2012, the informant has lodged the F.I.R. on 26.11.2012 at 9 AM in Balasore Town Police station. Few days thereafter the C.I.D. Crime Branch took up the investigation of the case. 3. During investigation it was revealed that P.S. Case No.429 of 2012 had been registered against the deceased persons Sk. Sabir and Sk. Saddique for the offences under sections 307/294/309/506/353 I.P.C. and the present case was registered vide P.S. Case No.430 of 2012 under sections 458/323/341/307/326/380/34 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer during investigation found that there was strain relationship between the present petitioner who is posted as Inspector-in-Charge of Town Police station and the deceased persons because of an alleged support by the present petitioner to one Mini India Company, where deceased Sk. Sabir had invested money, but the Managing Director of the Company namely Sk. Sahid Mojahid Alli did not return the money of Sk. Sabir. On the other hand, the present petitioner filed false cases at the instance of said Managing Director against deceased Sk. Sahid. During investigation it is further found that on 24.11.2012 at 9.30 A.M. there was a quarrel between one Rahim Khan and deceased Sk. Sabir and his brother Sk. Sahir, but the petitioner in the capacity of the Inspector-in-Charge of Town Police Station, being inimical towards the deceased and his brother arrested Sk. Sahir and during custody assaulted him and forwarded him to court. Against this illegal action of the petitioner the informant had made grievances before the superior Officers of the petitioner. On the same night the petitioner went with the staff to execute the warrant of arrest in connection with the case filed by Rahim Khan and committed the above occurrence as per the case of the prosecution. After due investigation charge sheet has been filed under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner only. 4. Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been illegally detained in custody because it is deceased Sk. Sabir who has threatened the petitioner that both the brothers would commit suicide if he would arrest them by entering their house and when police team tried to convince them to come out by opening the grill gate, Sk. Sabir brought the kerosene oil and poured it on him and on the body of Sk. Sabir who has threatened the petitioner that both the brothers would commit suicide if he would arrest them by entering their house and when police team tried to convince them to come out by opening the grill gate, Sk. Sabir brought the kerosene oil and poured it on him and on the body of Sk. Saddique and set fire on their person and the present petitioner and other police officials in order to save them entered house after breaking open the grill gate and sent them to the hospital for treatment. 5. Mr. Pal further submitted that no offence under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the petitioner when the deceased persons have committed suicide in order to avoid their arrest by the police and the petitioner had gone to execute the warrant as per the provisions of law. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not considered the evidence of outsiders and being biased by the evidence of the inmates of the house have falsely implicated the present petitioner only, whereas left out other police Officers and police constables who had accompanied the petitioner to the place of occurrence and participated in the raid made to the house of the informant. He further submitted that there are 14 cases pending against the deceased persons and same cases have been filed on different occasions when the present petitioner was not in-charge of Balasore Town Police Station and the informant, the relatives of the deceased persons, being vindictive against the police personnel has filed false case, whereas the deceased persons are responsible for the commission of suicide by them. So, he submitted that since prima facie case is not made out against the present petitioner and merely because he is a police Officer, he should not be detained in custody and the fact that charge sheet has already been submitted in this case, lenient view may be taken to release the petitioner on bail on any condition as deemed just and proper. 6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Crime Branch vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Crime Branch vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He stated that the present petitioner being in the capacity of a police Officer misused the power and he has no business to go at 3.30 A.M. in the night to execute the warrant in a case under sections 294/452/354/375/307/506/34 I.P.C. arising out of Balasore P.S. Case No. 427 of 2012. According to him, since the offences are very minor and no documentary evidence was there to show that the deceased persons were absconders or they have evaded the arrest in earlier occasions, the petitioner has no occasion to visit the house of the deceased persons to execute the warrant of arrest, but he had only gone due to personal enmity to settle the score. 7. He further submitted that while the petitioner was working at Titilagarh Police Station in 2015, has also been indulged in similar case. He submitted that there being prima facie case made out against the present petitioner who is a Police Officer, no lenient view should be taken to release the petitioner on bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail stating that the petitioner, being inimical to the decease persons, has set ablaze to deceased Sk. Sabir and Sk. Saddique by pouring kerosene and he has no authority to come in night to arrest them in false case. 9. In the case of Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others, reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 , Their Lordships at paragraphs 3 and 4 have observed thus: “3. xx xx xx xx Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 4. Grant of bail is within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge but the court must not, in grave cases, gullibly dismiss the possibility of police-accused intimidating the witnesses with cavalier case. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 4. Grant of bail is within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge but the court must not, in grave cases, gullibly dismiss the possibility of police-accused intimidating the witnesses with cavalier case. In our country, intimidation by policemen, when they are themselves accused of offences, is not an unknown phenomenon and the judicial process will carry credibility with the community only if it views impartially and with commonsense the pros and cons, undeterred by the psychic pressure of police presence as indictees” 10. With due respect to the said decision it is made clear that in an application for bail, the Court should avoid elaborate documentation on merits and particularly in case of bail for an accused Police Officer, impartiality must be maintained because a gesture of justice to Courts of justice is the least that a Government owes to the governed. So, the materials on record have to be scrutinized impartially to find out if at all the petitioner is entitled to bail. 11. In the case of Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2014(14) SCALE 59 , referring to the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & another, (2001) 4 SCC 280 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 as follows:- 10. xx xx xx “(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 11. In Chaman Lal V. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 , the Court has laid down certain factors, namely, the nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction and the character of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge which are to be kept in mind.” 12. Bearing in mind of these principles in law for the bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the materials on record require scrutiny. The statement of Arju Bibi, the wife of deceased Sk. Sabir, Rasida Parveen, who is the wife of Sk. Sahir, Sk. Sahejada Bibi, who is the sister of deceased Sk. Sabir and other relatives of the deceased stated that deceased Sk. Sabir had invested money in Mini India Company in 2011 with assurance to get better interest. But since the money was not refunded, Sk. Sabir filed case against the Managing Director Mojahid Alli, but the present petitioner having supported the said Company and its officials harassed the deceased and his family members. It is also revealed from their statements that on 24.11.2012 at about 9.30 A.M. there was a quarrel between Rahim Khan, who has got a shop near the shop of deceased Sk. Sabir and in that case the present petitioner being in-charge of the Police Station arrested Sk. Sahir and other accused persons, but after assaulting Sk. Sahir forwarded him to Court. On the same night the present petitioner went with its police staff to the house of the deceased and after breaking open the grill entered into the house of the deceased persons. Sahir and other accused persons, but after assaulting Sk. Sahir forwarded him to Court. On the same night the present petitioner went with its police staff to the house of the deceased and after breaking open the grill entered into the house of the deceased persons. The petitioner and other police staff poured kerosene from a jerrycan upon the deceased persons and set them on fire and when they have got 95% burn injury, the petitioner and the police staff took them to the hospital, but the deceased persons succumbed to the burn injuries. 13. At the same time it appears from the statement of one Jitendra Swain, who is an employee of Mini India Company that he was also arrested on the allegation of wife of deceased Sk. Sabir in the same occurrence night. It is further revealed from his statement that after arresting him he was allowed to sit in the jeep and then they came to the house of the deceased persons to execute the warrant. He stated that he saw the deceased Sk. Sabir abused the police people in obscene languages and then Sk. Sabir poured kerosene from a jerrycan on his person and on his brother and then set them on fire. The police Officers including the petitioner after breaking open the grill went inside and brought them to the police jeep and took them to the hospital. 14. The statements of Sk. Nausad, Sk. Sattar, Sultana Bibi who are neighbourers and the police officials who are not arrayed as accused persons but had accompanied the petitioner in the raiding party, while examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that when the petitioner and other police Officers asked Sk. Sabir to submit to custody for execution of warrant, Sk. Sabir who is the brother of Sk. Saddique refused to go with the police people and Sk. Sabir abused the police people in filthy language and threatened to take action against the police. It is revealed from their statements that without opening the gate Sk. Sabir poured kerosene on his person and on the person of his brother Sk. Saddique and set them on fire. Saddique refused to go with the police people and Sk. Sabir abused the police people in filthy language and threatened to take action against the police. It is revealed from their statements that without opening the gate Sk. Sabir poured kerosene on his person and on the person of his brother Sk. Saddique and set them on fire. Then the petitioner asked other police people to immediately intervene to save the deceased persons, for which they broke open the grill gate and took both the brothers in their jeep to the hospital, where they found to have 95% burn injuries and on the next day they succumbed to the injuries. 15. From the aforesaid material, it is revealed that statements of the inmates of the family accused the petitioner to have caused death of the deceased persons, whereas the outsiders eye witnesses including one of the accused in other case who was inside the jeep and accompanied police officials gave different version saying self immolation by the deceased persons to avoid arrest. It is also revealed that one of the witnesses stated to have recorded the dying declaration of Sk. Sabir where he has named the present petitioner, but the treating physician stated that the deceased having 95% burn injury has no ability to talk. 16. Although the F.I.R. was registered under sections 458/323/341/307/326/380/34 I.P.C., but after investigation charge sheet was submitted under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. It appears that the Investigating Officer has maintained both the above statements while opposing bail, but had recorded to the effect that “accused persuaded his mission to execute the N.B.W. issued by the court as a result of which the deceased persons committed self immolation which was with the knowledge of persuasion of the accused for which prima facie case under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is made out”. When the Investigating Officer has come to conclusion about a case of self-immolation of the deceased persons as per the statements of the eye witnesses, prima facie case is yet to be made out against the present petitioner. Whether self-immolation is within the knowledge of the present petitioner or not can be decided at the time of trial. When the Investigating Officer has come to conclusion about a case of self-immolation of the deceased persons as per the statements of the eye witnesses, prima facie case is yet to be made out against the present petitioner. Whether self-immolation is within the knowledge of the present petitioner or not can be decided at the time of trial. It is too early to opine on the merit of the case, but as per discussions made above and the opinion of the Investigating Officer, it is the considered opinion of this Court that prima facie case against the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail is yet to be formulated. Since charge sheet has been submitted and the petitioner being a local person has no chance of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where bail should be granted. It is needless to say that the Court has to take independent view being not persuaded by the fact that the petitioner is a Police Officer by relying upon the above decision of Niranjan Singh (Supra) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 17. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above including the nature of allegation and punishment prescribed for the alleged offence, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on condition that (i) the petitioner shall appear in person before the court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly threaten or induce the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever; (iii) he shall not commit any other offence while on bail; and (iv) he shall appear before the Investigating Officer in this case as and when required for the purpose of further investigation, if any, as the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet keeping open for further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The BLAPL is disposed of accordingly.