JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an application u/s 389, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Mother and son, the two appellants have been convicted u/s 306, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years each. They were chadged u/s 304-B, I.P.C. for which notice to show cause why they shall not be convicted u/s 304-B, I.P.C. and the sentence should not be enhanced, has been issued in this appeal. Mother, appellant No. 2 aged about 55 years has been directed to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) only with one surety in this appeal. Application in respect of son appellant No. 1 was kept pending to be considered after receipt of the L.C.R. This matter has been placed after receipt of the record of the lower Court. 3. In Criminal appeals, paper books are to be prepared as per rules of the Court. That, however, being only procedural, I offered to hear the appeal referring to the original since one of the convicts is in jail. Mr. S.P. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the appellants is unable to cooperate with me in hearing and disposal of the appeal itself since as yet he has not been instructed on that account. Accordingly, I have no other alternative than to hear this application so far as appellant No. 1 is concerned. 4. Standard of grant of pre-trial bail and bail after conviction stand on different footing. While legislature does not require recording of reasons for grant of pre-trial bail, post conviction bail during pendency of appeal u/s 389, Cr.P.C. requires the Court to record reasons in writing. 5. In support of grant of bail, Mr. Mohapatra submitted that the family of the convicts of mother and son. Mother has been released on bail by this Court and accordingly, son should be released as there in no other male member to look after the family. His second submission is that the accused persons were on bail in the Trial Court. He further submitted that although accused persons were tried u/s 304-B, I.P.C. they have been convicted u/s 306 I.P.C. which has been described by the learned Sessions Judge to be a minor offence. 6. His second submission is that the accused persons were on bail in the Trial Court. He further submitted that although accused persons were tried u/s 304-B, I.P.C. they have been convicted u/s 306 I.P.C. which has been described by the learned Sessions Judge to be a minor offence. 6. I am not inclined to accept any or all the submissions together to be just ground to suspend execution of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No. 1 because appellant No. 1 is husband of the deceased where allegation that the death was on account of hanging has been accepted. There are some injuries on the scalp of the deceased. Doctor opined that the same is unusual. Injury on the uterus of the deceased was opined by the doctor not to be possible by self infliction by the deceased. Some letters have been proved by the prosecution wherefrom torture on account of non-satisfaction of demand of some dowry is indicated. This Court to assess these materials along with other materials for considering the correctness of the conviction and also shall consider whether on the facts and in the circumstances, notice of enhancement shall be made absolute or shall be discharged. 7. Demand of dowry in Indian society has taken such root that legislature had to amend the law to punish the same in some circumstances where presumption of certain facts are to be drawn as provided in law if the preconditions of such presumption are satisfied. Offence is anti-social in nature. It is non-bailable. Apart from the fact that legislature intends that a convict shall serve the sentence normally unless for reasons to be recorded appellate Court exercises discretion to suspend the sentence and release the appellant on bail, conviction on account of anti-social activities should be seriously viewed and higher standard of reasons would be required to suspend execution of sentence and grant bail. 8. Circumstances indicated by Mr. S.P. Mohapatra are not such on basis of which on the facts of this case execution of sentence of appellant No. 1 shall be suspended to direct his release on bail. I find no reason to be recorded in writing for suspending of the order of conviction appealed against or to suspend execution of sentence so far as appellant Umakanta Palatasingh is concerned. 9. In the result, Misc. I find no reason to be recorded in writing for suspending of the order of conviction appealed against or to suspend execution of sentence so far as appellant Umakanta Palatasingh is concerned. 9. In the result, Misc. Case so far as appellant No. 1, has no merit which is accordingly, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed