JUDGMENT 1. - Heard.Though it is second bail application. It appears that while rejecting the earlier application the case diary was not summoned and the learned counsel was interested to get the bail order of the co-accused Vinod Kumar and Ramesh Kumar who were Government employees, as such the application of the petitioner was rejected with an observation "at this stage". 2. The application has now been heard on merits. The learned counsel submits that the incident had taken place on or about 3rd July, 1990 but no report was made to the police by the parents/relatives of the deceased, in-spite of the fact that they had come to her in-law's house after death and had taken away all the articles which were given at the time of marriage. Learned counsel submits that on 19-7-1990 a private complainant was filed which has been forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel also submits that all the co-accused have been released on bail and it is just and proper now to release the petitioner on bail. Learned counsel also submits that 23/24th April, 1992 was fixed in the Trial Court for recording the prosecution evidence but no witness turned-up and now next date has been fixed as 9th & 10th June, 1992. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail. 5. Without commenting on the merits of the case it had taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Consequently this application is allowed and it is directed that Madan Lal S/o Ganga Sahai shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties, in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court to appear before it on each and every date till the trial lasts. *******