JUDGMENT 1. - This application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2), Cr PC of accused-non-petitioner has been filed by the petitioner brother of deceased Smt Manju. 2. An FIR was lodged by complainant petitioner at Police Station Laxmangarh District Sikar on 8-8-1987 against the accused-non-petitioner and his mother under Sections 304(B), 498A and 201, IPC inter alia it was alleged that Smt. Manju was tortured for bringing more dowry and she died on account of this on July 28, 1987. The accused-non-petitioner was granted bait by this Court vide order dated February 18, 1988. 3. The contention of Shri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a fraud has been committed on this Court as the bail was obtained by the accused-non-petitioner on the basis of two affidavits by Ghanshyam and Goverdhan who gave out to be near relatives of deceased Manju, these affidavits were filed in the trial court and the certified copies of the same were filed before this Court. It is stated in the affidavits dated November 28, 1987, in that affidavits Ghanshyam and Goverdhan gave out that they were Uncle/"Tau" of deceased Manju. It is contended that both these persons are not related to deceased Manju and false affidavits were filed to influence the court and the court relying upon these affidavits accepted the bail application of the non-petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that since the bail has been obtained in fraudulent manner the same may be cancelled. 4. The contention of Shri N.L. Tibrewal, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners is that Ghanshyam and Goverdhan are near relatives of deceased Manju and nothing was concealed in the affidavits which have been filed not through accused-non-petitioner but were filed by the deponents themselves. It is also given out that the reliance was not placed only on two affidavits but on several other documents including letters written by deceased Manju to her husband and complainant Mool Chand as also non-petitioner Mata Deen himself. Nemi Chand, father of deceased Manju had also given in written on July 31, 1987 that his daughter had not been murdered but had died by natural death and that every thing given in dowry and cash amounting to Rs. 7,000/- has been returned to him. Nemi Chand, father of deceased Manju had also given in written on July 31, 1987 that his daughter had not been murdered but had died by natural death and that every thing given in dowry and cash amounting to Rs. 7,000/- has been returned to him. It is, therefore, contended that no fraud was committed on this Court nor anything was concealed and that the court relied on several documents and circumstances one of which was long delayed FIR before the bail was granted. 5. I have beard learned both the counsel and have also carefully gone through the affidavits, and other documents filed along with this application as also along with criminal miscellaneous bail application No. 276/1988. I had directed learned Public Prosecutor to get a report of Police regarding the relationship of deponents with deceased Manju, the copy of which was also given to the counsel for the accused-non-petitioner (report dated July 30, 1988). A pedigree of the family of Nemi Chand and some affidavits were also filed by the learned Counsel for the complainant/petitioner. The pedigree shows that there is relationship of Ghanshyam with deceased Manju but there is no mentioned of Goverdhan in the same. In the Police report it has been mentioned that both the deponents have relationship with deceased Manju. It may be mentioned that before the bail was granted to the accused-non-petitioner, at the request of learned Public Prosecutor time was granted to call for the diary and also at his request deponent Ghanshyam was called to unable the prosecution to verify the correctness of the affidavit filed by him in the trial court. The complainant had also engaged his own lawyer to look after the case in the trial court. Several letters written by deceased Manju, complainant Mool Chand, accused-non-petitioner, the witting given by the father of deceased etc. were produced in this Court which were taken into consideration before decision on the bail-application of the accused-non-petitioner was taken. There is no allegation that the accused-petitioner has in any way misused the liberty granted to him by releasing him on bail or that he is putting any impediment in expeditious trial of the case. were produced in this Court which were taken into consideration before decision on the bail-application of the accused-non-petitioner was taken. There is no allegation that the accused-petitioner has in any way misused the liberty granted to him by releasing him on bail or that he is putting any impediment in expeditious trial of the case. It is therefore, clear that it is not only the two affidavits which were relied upon for granting the bail to the accused-non-petitioner but the bail was granted by taking into consideration of the documents on record as mentioned above. Therefore, I do not find any force in this application, which is here by rejected. It is, how ever, made clear that none of the observations made here shall have any merit on merits of the case. It is also directed that the trial court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously and will take pain to see that the same is completed without any avoidable delay. The copy of this be sent to the trial court immediately. 6. In the result, the application for cancellation of bail is rejected.Application rejected. *******