FAROOQ HASAN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was arrested in the case F.I.R. No. 278/87 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Jaipur on the report of Manohar Singh brother of Tej Kanwar w/o of the petitioner whose marriage had taken place in the year 1984. The report contained allegations of ill-treatment and dowry demand by the in-laws of the deceased Tej Kanwar. As per the evidence so collected during interrogation by the Investigation Officer and the challan papers filed against the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is that Tejkanwar committed suicide due to the ill-treatment or dowry demand by her in-laws. During the course of the investigation, the statements of Ashwani, Durga Singh, and Madan Singh were recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. - on the basis of these statements, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the deceased burnt her self in a closed room bolted from inside and the deceased, herself, closed the room and that since the room was closed being bolted from inside, the ladies made a hue and cry which attracted the neighbours (aforementioned witnesses) who came on the scene of the occurrence and tried to break the door of the room and the door was opened. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore, contended that this is a clear case of suicide and it can never be said that Smt. Tej Kanwar was murdered. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the neighbourers whose statements were recorded under Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. were the best persons who have corroborated the allegation of the informant and the statement of brother father and mother of the deceased regarding ill-treatment or dowry demands but not even a single word has been spoken by these neighbours regarding ill-treatment or dowry demands. The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of the informant, Manohar Singh, Puran Singh and Kishore Singh (all brothers of the deceased) of father & mother of the deceased. On the basis of these statements, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that it has been undoubtedly established that the accused (in-laws) of the deceased, used to ill-treat the deceased and that the dowry demand had repeatedly been made by the in-laws of the deceased. On the basis of these statements, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that it has been undoubtedly established that the accused (in-laws) of the deceased, used to ill-treat the deceased and that the dowry demand had repeatedly been made by the in-laws of the deceased. He contended that if it is assumed that Tej Kanwar committed suicide then too, it may be held that the deceased committed suicide due to the alleged ill-treatment and the dowry demand. He further contended that the external injuries like cut and hematoma found by the doctor who conducted post mortem clearly shows that the deceased was ill-treated and she was beaten before death by her-in-laws. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the aforesaid persons who are not near relatives of the deceased have given tutored statement which is general in form. No details are made in these statements. From these statements, it does not appear as to when, where and at what time, the deceased was ill-treated or dowry demand was made. 4. Learned counsel further contended that prior to the death of Tej Kanwar, none of the relatives of the deceased made any complaint either to the in-laws to any authority. If according to the prosecution ill-treatment was a regular phenomenon then what was the hindrances or impediments and trouble in not making any complaint or seeking any remedy. This shows that after the death of the deceased, a case was planted, Shri Dhankhar added. Shri Dhank-har further submitted that from the statements it does not appear as to what were the relevant causes for the external injuries as is pointed out, by Shri Calla or that the injuries were caused by the accused. According to Shri Dhankhar, it can be said that the injuries are sustained at the time when Tej Kanwar comm-itted suicide. He further argued that in view of these facts, it cannot be said that there is prima facie case against the petitioner so as to charge him for the offence under Section 498A and 304-B, IPC because in this case, there is no evidence of the in-laws specially to the effect of cruelty with the deceased just before she committed suicide. 5. I have considered the points raised and perused the case diary and documents found on the file produced alongwith challan. 5. I have considered the points raised and perused the case diary and documents found on the file produced alongwith challan. 1 find that the neighbours whose statements were recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. nowhere stated any tiling about the ill-treatment or dowry demand. According to their statements, Tej Kanwar committed suicide inside the rooms and they were the persons who broke the door which was bolted from inside and they reached at the scene of the occurrence after hearing hue and cry of mother-in-law of the deceased. After going through, the statement of near relatives of the deceased it can be said that these persons nowhere claimed that they made any complaint before this incident against the petitioner about ill-treatment and dowry demand. No specific day and time for ill-treatment and dowry demand was given by them in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I do not want to state and express any opinion on the versions given in the statements and the omissions if any pointed out by Mr. Dhankhar and further to observe that the so-called omissions are such that create any doubt for the prosecution case. But, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Jaipur and there is nothing to show that he will not face the trial or make any attempt to win over the witnesses, I am inclined to grant bail u/s 439, Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. 6. It is, therefore, ordered that accused-petitioner, Rajendra Singh s/o Ram Singh, Rajput, r/o Mohan Nagar, Brahampuri, Nahargarh Jaipur (at present in central Jail, Jaipur) be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case.