JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Smt. Shakuntla was married to Vimal Jain s/o the present petitioner. Smt. Shakuntala and her daughter Panchi sustained injuries. Panchi died in the morning on 9.2.89 and Smt. Shakuntala died on 11.2.89. On the basis of the report lodged by Shri Rajmal Jain father of Smt. Shakuntala a case under section 304B and 498-A Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner used to make demand of dowry to Smt. Shakuntala. In the report lodged by the father of Smt. Shakuntala it has been alleged that his daughter has been murdered by the petitioner along with her husband and his son. In that report a doubt is expressed by the informant. Learned P.P. today referred the statement of one Jawaharlal whose statement has been recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code on 2.3.89 and who claimed himself as a eye-witness of the incident who has stated that Smt. Shakuntala was beaten by her father in law and at that time petitioner was also present. The witness Jawaharlal stated about the overt act of the petitioner by saying that the petitioner merely pulled and pushed the daughter of Shakuntala but said nothing about any beating to Smt. Shakuntala. Learned P.P. referred letters dated 10.6.88., 25.6.88 and 28.12.88 which are said to have been written by Smt. Shakuntala. In the letters written in the month of June, 1988 demand of dowry was mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that nothing adverse has been stated by Jawaharlal against the petitioner. His statement has been recorded on 2.3.89. Had he been an eye-witness of the incident then he could have made report himself. Learned counsel therefore contended that on 25.6.88 Smt. Shakuntala was at Murena to attend the marriage of her relations. In these circumstances the letters are fabricated subsequently because they are written on plain papers. 2. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that Smt. Shakuntala and her daughter accidental sustained injuries because while coming down from the 1st floor to the ground floor, both of them fell down. Smt. Shankuntala was given utmost care by the doctors and all medical facilities were made for her survival. 2. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that Smt. Shakuntala and her daughter accidental sustained injuries because while coming down from the 1st floor to the ground floor, both of them fell down. Smt. Shankuntala was given utmost care by the doctors and all medical facilities were made for her survival. The informant was also informed who came to Ajmer on 11-2-89 when Shankuntala was alive and before her death not even a single word was spoken by the father of the deceased but subsequently false story has been planned and the report was lodged with baseless allegations. 3. I have considered the points raised and documents referred by the learned P. P. At this stage I do not want to express my opinion on the merits of the case but suffice to say that even in the presence of statement of Jawaharlal, Subhash Jain and the letters alleged to have been written by the deceased Smt. Shankuntala I am of the opinion that bail cannot be refused to the petitioner. This bail application is, therefore, allowed. The petitioner may be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for her appearance in that court as and when called upon to do so.Bail Granted. *******