JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner No. 3, is the father-in-law of the deceased Santosh. Petitioner No. 2 is her sister-in-law and petitioner No. 1 is the husband of petitioner No. 2. The case against them is under Section 304 (B), 306 and 498A I.P.C. There are other accused persons also and the husband of the deceased has been released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. The present application is under section 438 Cr. P.C. The manner in which Santosh died is said to be suicide and she left a note for her father-in-law and mother-in-law, in which she did not make any allegations against anybody. But there is another note written to her father and mother in which she has mentioned that she was illtreated by everyone in her in-laws family and that she was also harassed for dowry. The matter is under investigation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is a general allegation about demand of dowry and there is no material to show that immediately before her death Santosh was illtreated, therefore on the basis of this general allegation, the petitioners who were not regular residents of Kekri where the deceased was residing should not be allowed to be arrested. It is also pointed out that all the three are Government servants, petitioner No. 1 being posted at Nasirabad, petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 being posted at Bhinay. Reliance has been placed on 1988 Cr. L.J. (Raj.) 157 where an old lady of 60 years was given indulgence of the provision of section 438 Cr. P.C. when there was a general statement against all the members of the family regarding demand of dowry, but no supporting evidence was found. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon 1987(1) SCC 466 , Samunder Singh v. State of Raj. and ors. It has been discussed in this case that dowry deaths are not to be treated casually and the High Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. and ors. It has been discussed in this case that dowry deaths are not to be treated casually and the High Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. The unnatural death of a daughter-in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation and the appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned magistrate to deal with the same on the basis of the material before the court at the point of time of their arrest in case they were arrested. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has also tried to convince that the letter written by Santosh to her parents was actually a letter written by her and could not be said to be a procured one as suggested by the petitioners. 6. The present application is under section 438 Cr. P.C. and the circumstances are very clear that an unnatural death has occurred in the house of petitioner No. 3. It is said to be a case of suicide and it is no one's case that the deceased was a person of unsound mind so as to say that she was not able to understand the act which she was doing. So far there is some material to show that she was unhappy on account of some reasons, one of them being demand of dowry and the other the illtreatment meted out to her, which forced her to take her own life. 7. However, the petitioners 1 and 2 were not present to the house when the incident occurred and as they were not permanent residents of the house where the deceased was living, their involvement in the case is to be examined in detail and at this stage it can be said that they can be granted anticipatory bail and they would participate in the investigation and be available for interrogation. 8. As far as the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he cannot be placed on the same footing as other two petitioners. He was a head of the family and could be said to be responsible for all what was happening in his house. His attitude either positive or casual cannot be ignored in the incident which has occurred. 8. As far as the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he cannot be placed on the same footing as other two petitioners. He was a head of the family and could be said to be responsible for all what was happening in his house. His attitude either positive or casual cannot be ignored in the incident which has occurred. To grant anticipatory bail to him would amount to considering the whole case in a very casual manner. His bail application is therefore rejected. 9. The S.H.O./Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, Police Station, Kekri in FIR No. 86 of 1988 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Surender Singh son of Kanhayalal Solanki and Smt. Indra wife of Surender Singh Solanki, they be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5.000/- with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:- 1. that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 3. that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. *******