JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application has been filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioners. 2. On 21st January, 1992, a written report was lodged at the Police Station, Vigyan Nagar, Kota by Purushottam Khandelwal with the allegations that his daughter Sangeeta was married to Rakesh Khandelwal on 27th November 1991. The allegations have been levelled against the accused-petitioners that they were dis-satisfied with the items which have been given in marriage by the author of the FIR. He came to know through one of his relatives in the morning that the day before 21st January, 1992 his daughter Sangeeta had been killed at the house of her in laws and, thereupon he rushed to Kota in a taxi. He was told by the in-laws that Sangeeta has died of poisoning. He has mentioned in the First Information Report that, in fact, her daughter has been murdered as the people had informed him that Sangeeta's husband Rakesh had taken her to the market a day before and had given poison to her in the betel and, as a result of the same Sangeeta died and that Sangeeta has not committed suicide. It has been alleged that his daughter Sangeeta has been murdered as a result of conspiracy between Sangeeta's husband Rakesh Khandelwal and his parents and his brother and sister. On these allegations, the First Information Report was filed which was registered at No. 33/92 under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 120-B, IPC. The present accused petitioners were taken into custody and their bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Kota on 19th February, 1992. 3. Shri Bajwa has argued that at the most it is a plain and simple case under Section 302, IPC and, in view of the specific allegations in the First Information Report that Sangeeta has died as a result of the poison given to her in the betel by Rakesh Khandelwal, the present accused-petitioners who are father-in-law and mother-in-law, cannot be involved in this case with reference to Sections 304-B, 498-A and 120-B, IPC. According to Shri Brjwa, it is a case which involves no criminal liability against the present accused-petitioners and Rakesh Khandelwal who is the husband of Sangeeta and who had given poison to Sangeeta in the betel is only liable. The post-mortem report shows that on chemical examination of viscera, there is positive result showing presence of aluminium phosphide. According to Shri Brjwa, it is a case which involves no criminal liability against the present accused-petitioners and Rakesh Khandelwal who is the husband of Sangeeta and who had given poison to Sangeeta in the betel is only liable. The post-mortem report shows that on chemical examination of viscera, there is positive result showing presence of aluminium phosphide. 4. Shri A.K. Gupta and learned Addl. Public Prosecutors have referred to a letter dated 10th January, 1992 written by the deceased Sangeeta from Kota and has submitted that the contents of this letter show that Sangeeta was subjected to harassment and cruelty and her in-laws were not satisfied with what has been given to her in the marriage. It has also been submitted that certain bottles have been recovered by the police from the house of Sangeetas in-laws at the instance of the accused-petitioners which contain poisonous substance. 5. On the other hand, Shir Bajwa has submitted that while the contents of the letter dated 10th January, 1992 do not show that there was any harassment or subjection to cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry and there are no specific allegations to this effect against any of the accused-petitioners. There are two letters which had been written by the deceased, Sangeeta, to her sister-in-laws separately and, in both these letters she has not raised any grievance against any of the accused-petitioners, rather she has mentioned good of her mother-in-laws. It has been submitted that these two letters are of 11th December, 1991 and 1st January, 1992 only and Sangeeta had lived with the in-laws hardly for a period of 20 days after the marriage. Regarding the bottles which have been recovered containing poisonous substance, it has been submitted that the bottles contain substance which is meant to kill insects i.e. pesticide only and such substances are normally found in every house. Stress has been Laid on the fact that as per the First Information Report it is the husband of the deceased who is solely responsible and there is no question of invoking either Sec. 498-A or 304-B read with Sec. 120-B. IPC against the present accused-petitioner. It has also been submitted that the accused-petitioner No. 2 is a lady and she is not keeping good health and, both these accused-petitioners are in custody since 31st January, 1992. 6. It has also been submitted that the accused-petitioner No. 2 is a lady and she is not keeping good health and, both these accused-petitioners are in custody since 31st January, 1992. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by both the sides. Having gone through three letters, to which reference has been made, I am facing a great predicament as to whether it is a case of dowry death, or otherwise a case of murder against Rakesh Khandelwal alone and even prima facie, it is very difficult to form any opinion either way at this stage. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the contents of the First Information Report, in which there is a specific allegation against Rakesh Khandelwal for administering poisons in the betel to his wife and, considering the cumulative effect of the three letters. I am inclined to accept the bail application of the present accused-petitioners without meaning and expressing any opinion on merits. 7. Accordingly the present accused-petitioners bail application under Sec. 439, Cr.P.C. is accepted & it is directed that accused-petitioners. 1. Prafulla Chand son of Kalyan Chand & 2. Smt. Kaushalya Bai wife of Prafullachand, by caste Mahajan, r/o Talwandi. Kota shall be released on bail provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before it on the next date of hearing and on all subsequent dates of hearing and whenever they are called upon to do so. *******