JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. Heard Mr. D K Sinha, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Kumar Binode Bariar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the APP ) for the State and Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the informant. 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Maigra PS Case No. 05 of 2018 dated 07.02.2018, instituted under Sections 328, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had poisoned the snacks and tea offered by them to the deceased which he consumed leading to his death. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except for bald suspicion, no evidence is on record to indicate that the petitioners had administered any poison to the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the informant, along with the elder brother of her husband, had gone to the house of the petitioners with regard to clarifying certain dispute relating to property and there it is alleged that the petitioners had offered them snacks and tea and it was only the deceased who took ill and later died. Learned counsel submitted that if there was any poisoning in the food or the tea, then the informant too should have been afflicted by the same poison, but nothing happening to her indicates that even if there was any poisoning, it was not because of the eatables consumed at the residence of the petitioners by the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that neither the inquest nor postmortem reports indicate any other foul play and the viscera has been sent for forensic test. Learned counsel submitted that besides having no criminal antecedent, petitioner no. 2 is the mother of petitioner no. 1 and she has no role, either in the dispute or in the incident, if at all it is assumed for the sake of argument that there was some foul play. With regard to the petitioner no. 3, it was submitted that she is also a woman being the wife of petitioner no. 2 is the mother of petitioner no. 1 and she has no role, either in the dispute or in the incident, if at all it is assumed for the sake of argument that there was some foul play. With regard to the petitioner no. 3, it was submitted that she is also a woman being the wife of petitioner no. 1 and more importantly, there are two minor daughters and there is no other family member except for the three petitioners to take care of them and, thus, the Court would take a sympathetic view, especially in the present times due to the pandemic where it would be difficult for the minor daughters to manage. 6. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that many witnesses have supported the prosecution story of the deceased having consumed snacks and tea at the house of the petitioners whereafter he took ill and later succumbed. It was submitted that the postmortem being inconclusive, the viscera having been sent for forensic report, such report has been received and is available in the case diary, which discloses that sulfas, which is a pesticide and poisonous and fatal for human beings, has been found in the viscera of the deceased, which proves that he was poisoned. 7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that witnesses have supported the prosecution story with regard to the deceased having consumed snacks and tea at the house of the informant and further that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant should have also been affected by the poison is erroneous for the reason that in villages, the normal practice is that whatever food is brought for the guest, is marked separately and even the tea which is brought is separate and, thus, specifically the snacks and tea given to the deceased had been poisoned and not of the informant, who was a lady and was not of any consequence, as the dispute was of the petitioners with the deceased. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioners no. 2 and 3 be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioners no. 2 and 3 be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sherghati in Maigra PS Case No. 05 of 2018, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 and (ii) that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 shall cooperate with the prosecution/police and the Court. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. 9. The prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioner no. 1, namely Binod Yadav, stands rejected. 10. The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.