AB 1184/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.BARUAH All the case indicated above have arisen on account of registration of Noonmati P.S.Case No.127/2011 U/ss. 120(B)/306 IPC on the basis of the FIR lodged by Dr. Pranjal Bharali with the Officer-in-charge, Noonmati P.S., on 24.4.2011 on accou nt of commission of suicide by his wife, namely, Monalisa Bharali on the night o f 22.4.11. Since the facts involves in all the 3 cases are similar and th e relief(s) sough for being also similar, all the cases are taken up together fo r disposal by this common order. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in each of the cases and Mr. B.B.Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P.Assam for the State respondent. It is also to be mentioned here that a similar FIR was also file d with the Officer-in-charge, Noonmati P.S. by the eldest daughter of Dr. Pranja l Bharali, the first informant on account of death of her mother, Monalisa Bhara li on the night of 22.4.11. Both the FIRs having been received, a similar case n umber was recorded and registered U/s. 120(B)306 IPC. The learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not have any hand in the death of Monalisa Bharali, the wif e of the informant. Deceased Monalisa Bharali died in her own residence, who bef orehand attended the family function on the night in the house of her brother-i n-law. After attending the family function, she along with her family members re turned home and thereafter she died. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitione rs that the deceased was never humiliated by any of the petitioners assailing he r character and, therefore, there can be no ground to hold that at their instanc es the deceased, Monalisa Bharali committed suicide. On the other hand, the lear ned counsel appearing for the petitioners would emphasize on the fact that the f irst informant (Dr.Pranjal Bharali) had his hand in the death of his wife and fo r that Sri Nabajyoti Lahkar lodged an FIR with the police against him. The learn ed counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that the facts and material s appearing in the face of the record do not justify the rejection of the applic ations filed U/s. 438 CrPC. Contrary to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.B.Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. representing the State respo ndent submitted that the statements of the witnesses so far recorded by the I.O. indicate that while the deceased along with her family members on the relevant time visited the house of her brother-in-law for a family function, Sri Parag Sa ikia, his wife and their two daughters along with others, who are all related to Monalisa Bharali (deceased) humiliated her very severely assailing her characte r. When the family function was over, they all returned home and at about 2.30 A M on the same night said Monalisa Bharali got herself ablazed by pouring kero sene on her body who subsequently succumbed to injuries. It is submitted by Mr. B.B.Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, that on account of humiliation assailing M onalisa Bharali’s character, she being unable to bear such humiliation took the extreme step. He also submitted that Monalisa Bharali committed suicide on accou nt of such humiliation by the petitioners and for which the petitioners would no t be entitled to privilege of pre-arrest bail. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am constrained to scrutinize the materials available in the case diary including the statements of the witnesses recorded U/s 161 CrPC. The I.O. of the case also recorded the statement of the first informant, Dr. Pranjal Bha rali and his daughter, Miss Dorothy. Their statements go to show that Monalisa B harali on the relevant night while attended the family function in the house of her brother-in-law, Sri Alakesh Barua, she was humiliated by the petitioners ass ailing her character which compelled her to take the extreme step. From the stat ements it also appears had there been no humiliation from the side of the petiti oners,, Monalisa Bharali would not have committed suicide. From the statements of Pranjal Bharali, it appears to us that he was not present at the time of such humiliation though his daughter Miss Dorot hy was all along with her mother at that time. Miss Dorothy’s statement when sc rutinize reveals such humiliation to Monalisa Bharali by the petitioners which a ccording to her goaded Monalisa Bharali to commit suicide setting fire on hersel f by pouring kerosene on the night of 22.4.11. Minus the statements of the witne sses, the statements of Dr. Pranjal Bharali and his daughter Miss Dorothy in pa rticular, we have found no sufficient materials available in the case diary to r ead a nexus of the petitioners with the suicide. From the facts involved in this case and the materials available in the case diary, this court is of the considered view that the interim bail p rovided vide order dated 6.5.11 should be made absolute in respect of the petiti oners. The bail applications are accordingly allowed and disposed of.