JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is accused for the offence under section 302 and 498A IPC. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was married with the deceased Kailash Kanwar in the year 1977 and they had no issues. They were living in a portion of a big house, a portion of which was occupied by a tenant and other portions by the parents and brother of the petitioner. On the night intervening 13/14 June, 1988, Kailash Kanwar died on account of burns, in her room on the ground floor. It is stated that the room was locked from inside. In the early morning, the father of the petitioner noticed some smoke coming from the room and then this was discovered. The elder brother of the petitioner informed the police. The parents of the deceased were also fetched from the village. The police registered a case and this petitioner was arrested on 21st June, 1988. His parents were also made accused and they are on bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was sleeping in the room alongwith the deceased and on basis of the articles which were found in the room it is suggested that the petitioner himself had first tied the hands and foot of the deceased so that she could not resist and then she was burnt in that position. The ashes from the burnt rope or cloth are said to have collected on the ground. The deceased was found lying (illegible) on the floor and there were practically no burns on her back and from this also it is argued that she was in a position wherein she could not move. In the room a can of kerosene oil was found. It is stated that some blood was found on the clothes of the petitioner hanging on a peg and on the mattress. It was also surmised that this could not have been done by a single person because other inmates of the house would have collected on hearing the cries. There are allegations that the deceased was ill-treated and there were demands of dowry. 3. The Doctor did not give any final opinion about the cause of death because he wanted to wait for the chemical and histo pathological reports. There are allegations that the deceased was ill-treated and there were demands of dowry. 3. The Doctor did not give any final opinion about the cause of death because he wanted to wait for the chemical and histo pathological reports. There is specific mention that there are no wounds on the thigh and arms as was mentioned by the investigating officer in the Panchnama. The chemical report was found negative for any poison. 4. Besides the facts and particulars given above, it is stated that the deceased left a suicide note in which she did not put blame on any one. This note has not been made available to me as it is not in the case diary. A neighbour living on the same floor has not been interrogated for purposes of finding out if he had heard any cries. No opinion can be expressed on the merits of the case at this stage but considering the above circumstances specially that the marriage has taken place 11 years ago and that there are some circumstances in favour of the petitioner and some are against him, he can be released on bail on appropriate conditions. 5. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Dinesh Singh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court on all dates of hearing during the pendency of the trial of this case and as and when called upon with the further condition that he shall not threaten or influence the witnesses for the prosecution.Application allowed. *******