P. C. PATHAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 439 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure by the brother of deceased Smt. Kiran who was the wife of non-applicant No. 2. ( 2 ) DECEASED Kiran was married to the non-applicant No. 2 on 6/2/1985 On a demand of dowry, the father of the deceased had assured non-applicant No. 2 to give them by Dipawali of 1985. However, on account of the delay in receipt of those articles, it is alleged that non-applicant No. 2 al ways harassed the deceased, this is clear from letters Annexures A-B-C written by her to her father wherein he had given the details of the articles demanded by non-applicant No. 2 in dowry and the atrocities committed to her for want of desired items of dowry. On 15. 10. 1985, the deceased died of burn injuries. During investigation the aforesaid letter were seized vide seizure memo dated 26/10/1985 Annexure-E. ( 3 ) THE non-applicant No. 2 was released on bail on the grounds that (1) dying declaration does not state who caused the burn injuries and (2) the case rests on circumstantial evidence, and (3) there is no eye-witness. It is stated that after his release on bail, he threatened the prosecution witnesses Murari Lal and Jawahar Das which was reported to the police on 24/10/1985. The applicant was threatened for which the report was lodged by him on 10/11/1985. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the Government Advocate. I am satisfied there is prima facie material on record to show that death of the Kiran is not Incidental and is cc- related with dowry demands. The Court below failed to consider the letters and the circumstances on record. The bail was granted in a routine manner. It is true, that the case hinges on circumstantial evidence and the! e is no eye-witness at all but it cannot be said that if the various links of circumstantial evidence are established there cannot be a conviction. The facts that the marriage took place on 6/2/1985 and she died of burn injuries on 15/10/1985, prima facie requires the accused now under the amendment provisions to explain in what circumstance the deceased died. All this will be examined at the stage of trial. The facts that the marriage took place on 6/2/1985 and she died of burn injuries on 15/10/1985, prima facie requires the accused now under the amendment provisions to explain in what circumstance the deceased died. All this will be examined at the stage of trial. There are also reports against him that he is misusing his liberty by there attaining the prosecution witnesses. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it was not a fit case for grant of bail. At any rate, on account of misuse or liberty, the bail granted to non applicant No. 2, is liable to be cancelled. The application is allowed. The bail of non-applicant No. 2 is hereby cancelled. The C. J. M. , Mandla is directed to came arrest of non applicant No. 2 and put him in custody. Certified Copy be given on payment of usual charges. Application allowed. .