Significant material inconsistencies between medical evidence and witness testimonies regarding cause of death warrant grant of bail.

The Applicant sought enlargement on bail regarding FIR No. 32 of 2022 involving the death of his wife, Monika Vishwas, whom he married on 26.11.2021

The prosecution alleged the deceased was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands (cash, motorcycle, LED TV) and claimed the Applicant had an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law

While the FIR and witnesses suggested death by strangulation or hanging, the post-mortem report attributed the cause of death to "asphyxia as a result of ante mortem drowning"

During the trial (Sessions Trial No. 101 of 2022), several material witnesses, including the complainant (P.W.-1), admitted the marriage was a love marriage with no initial dowry demands, and others were declared hostile

1. Whether the material inconsistencies between the ocular/testimonial evidence and the medical evidence entitle the Applicant to bail during the pendency of the trial

2. Whether the Applicant has made out a fit case for bail considering the stage of the trial and the nature of the evidence recorded thus far

The Court considered the penal provisions of Sections 302 (Murder), 304-B (Dowry Death), 498-A (Cruelty), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (Common intention) of the IPC

It applied the settled legal principle that while the court should not conduct a "mini-trial" at the bail stage, it must consider material inconsistencies in the prosecution's record and the duration of incarceration when substantial evidence has already been recorded

The Court observed a sharp contradiction between the prosecution’s narrative and the medical findings; while the family alleged homicidal assault or hanging, the post-mortem report specifically cited drowning

Furthermore, the court noted that the complainant (P.W.-1) undermined the dowry motive by testifying that it was a love marriage without such demands

The Court highlighted that multiple prosecution witnesses (P.W.-13, P.W.-15, and P.W.-17) turned hostile and that the recovery of evidence (bucket and gamcha) was described as suspicious by P.W.-7

Given that 18 out of 30 witnesses had been examined and the trial was delayed due to stayed proceedings of a co-accused, the Court determined that the lack of a "consistent and unambiguous prosecution version" favored the grant of bail

The Court ordered the release of Sandeep Sardar on a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions that he appear for trial, refrain from threatening witnesses, and not tamper with evidence