JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a young had aged only 17 years of old. He further submits that the marriage of Smt. Rajwanti with the co-accused Geelia had taken place in the year 1981 He also read over to me the statements of all the witnesses to show that there is no evidence against the petitioner with regard to demand of dowry etc. 3. Contrary to this, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that a challan has been filed against the accused petitioner along with other co-accused persons. He also submits that a challan against the petitioner has filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C., as such, he should not be given benefit of pre-arrest bail. 4. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case diary. After considering the entire material on record, I am of the view that the petitioner should appear before the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Bandikui and if he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two surities in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) each, he shall be released on bail by the learned Magistrate. 5. The petitioner is directed to appear in the aforesaid Court within a period of two week, failing which this order will not be in operative. *******