JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the order of the trial court and the case diary. 2. The contention of Mr. R.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner with deceased Meena was solemniged on 13-4-84 and she died on 25-3-87. It is contended that her father and other members of the family were present at the time of cremation of deceased. It is also stated that the FIR has been lodged on 21-4-87 by the father of the deceased after delay of about 27 days. The petitioner was arrested in the 3rd week of December, 1987. It is also pointed out that no post-mortem has been done in the case, as no objection was raised by either father or any other member of the family of the deceased at the time of cremation. 3. Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that in a letter dated 30-1-85 said to be written by the deceased to her husband petitioners it is stated that she will be prepared to line with her husband in all conditions etc. It is also stated that in the statements of other members of the family of the deceased allegations of dowry had been made from time to time and she was ill treated I have also perused the statement of Dr. Sharma, who was called and gave her some injunction before specified. He has stated that he had examined Meena and found no marks of injury. The medicines given to her were also shown to him. The prescription of Govt. dispensary is also on the diary, but the Doctor who wrote the prescription has not been examined so far. 4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking in to consideration the facts that FIR was lodged after 27 days of the death of deceased and even though FIR was lodged in April, 1987, still the investigation has not been completed and no post-mortem has taken place. I am inclined to gran bail to the petitioner. It is therefore, ordered that accused petitioner Madan Lal be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith two sureties in the amount of Rs. I am inclined to gran bail to the petitioner. It is therefore, ordered that accused petitioner Madan Lal be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith two sureties in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge Jaipur district, Jaipur, for his appearance in that court on all dates of hearing and whenever he is called upon to do so.Bail Granted. *******