JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. 1. Undergoing trial for offence of 498A, 304B in the alternative 302 and 120B IPC in Sessions Case No. 13/2017, pending before Addl. Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali, accused-petitioner has laid this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Aforesaid trial is founded on CR No. 26/2014 PS Sanderao, District Pali. 2. The first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 30.05.2017 at the stage of investigation. 3. Subsequently, second bail application was rejected on 12.01.2018 by a detailed order. 4. Pressing the instant third bail application, it is contended by learned Sr. Counsel that after rejection of second bail application there is substantial change in the circumstances. For highlighting material change in the circumstances, learned Sr. Counsel has placed heavy reliance on statements of PW2 Dr. Suresh Chandra Bhandari. It is argued by learned Sr. Counsel that despite conducting twin autopsy of deceased Ms. Urmila Kanwar, cause of death was not revealed is clearly apparent from the statements of PW2. While emphasizing some of the disclosures by witness PW2 about destruction of visceras after 90 days in the wake of its examination after inordinate delay and absence of any visible symptoms of poison on the dead body, learned Sr. Counsel submits that prosecution case is full of fissures. Learned Sr. Counsel further urged that a cumulative reading of statements of PW2 has put the entire prosecution case under serious clouds about Ms. Urmila Kanwar's probable cause of death. Mr. Bora has also relied on testimony of PW3 Shivlal and PW4 Lal Singh, wherein both the witnesses have shown accidental injuries as probable cause of death. Learned Sr. Counsel would urge that so far during trial only 4-5 witnesses are examined out of 35 prosecution witnesses, therefore, early conclusion of trial is per se not possible. Learned Sr. Counsel, therefore, submits that considering prolonged custody of the petitioner for more than 1½ years coupled with material change in the circumstances, petitioner may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that petitioner is not entitled for bail in the backdrop of serious criminal delinquencies. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and thoroughly examined materials available on record including the statements of witnesses recorded during trial. 7. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that petitioner is not entitled for bail in the backdrop of serious criminal delinquencies. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and thoroughly examined materials available on record including the statements of witnesses recorded during trial. 7. A very significant fact that prosecution has shown different versions about probable cause of unnatural death of Ms. Urmila Kanwar cannot be altogether overlooked by the Court. Dilemma of the prosecution on this vital issue, which is the very basis of entire case, has serious visible repercussions to prima facie bring home guilt of the accused for charged offences. Therefore, considering the prosecution evidence so far available and the prolonged custody of petitioner during trial, without expressing any opinion on merits, I feel inclined to accept this third bail application. 8. Accordingly, third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Arvind Singh S/o Magsingh, arrested in connection with C.R. No. 26/2014 of Police Station Sanderao, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.