R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the father of Rajbir Singh who wasmarried to the deceased Gulab Devi on 17. 6. 1990. He is facing prosecutionalong with his son Rajbir Singh and wife Smt. Jagwati. Jagwati is on bailand he has also prayed for bail in this application. ( 2 ) I have beard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for theparties. The case of the prosecution is based primarily on the statementdated 27. 7. 92 of Smt. Mohan Devi mother of the deceased. She stated thatshe had married her daughter to Rajbir Singh about 2 years back. She wasabout 20 years old and had a son of about 11 months. After marriage,rajbir Singh and his parents used to harass her daughter for bringing moredowry. They even used to beat her. Whenever the deceased came to herhouse, she complained about Rajbir Singh and his parents who some timedemanded money for buying a buffalo or at other times demanded a coolsror a fridge. She could not fulfil these demands. As a result, the deceasedlived in constant trouble. On 24. 7. 92 on account of TEEJ festival heryounger son Mahender went to Palam. On that day also Rajbir and hisparents gave beating to Gulab Devi deceased as a result of which she finishedher life by throwing herself before the train out "of frustration. Her statement is supported by her son Satbir Singh and Mahender Singh. Mahendersingh is one who had visited his sister s house on TEEJ festival day I. e. on24. 7. 1992. He saw beating being given to her by Rajbir Singh and hisparents. At that time his sister told him that he should go back or otherwisethey will beat him also and so he returned to his village. His age is only 15years. There is another supporting statement of ltwari Lal, maternal uncleof the deceased. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the statementof Smt. Mohan Devi, mother of the deceased is only a hearsay evidence because the alleged complaint made to her by the deceased regarding thealleged beating, harassment and demand of dowry to her are not corroborated by any other evidence. I am afraid it is not possible to say that thestatement of Mohan Devi is in the nature of hearsay evidence. She is theone to whom the deceased had been complaining about the alleged ill-treatment, beating and demands of dowry. I am afraid it is not possible to say that thestatement of Mohan Devi is in the nature of hearsay evidence. She is theone to whom the deceased had been complaining about the alleged ill-treatment, beating and demands of dowry. Moreover, we have the statementof Mahender Singh, brother of the deceased who actually saw her being subjected to man-handling by the husband and has parents. It was only on25. 7. 1992, that is, the day next to the TEEJ festival that she is alleged tohave committed suicide. It is not possible to say at this stage that the siteplan indicates it to be a case of an accident suffered by the deceased whileshe was returning after answering the call of nature and so many circumstances will have to be seen in this respect and at this stage the circumstancesdo indicate prima fade the harassment to the deceased on account of demandof dowry and her consequent death in un-natural circumstances. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then contended that the petitioner was an old patient of injuries on his neck and right shoulder which hesustained due to fall from the roof of his house in December, 1991. Theinjuries are alleged to have surfaced again due to cold and unhygienic conditions in the jail for which petitioner was now getting proper medical treatment. It may be noted that now we are at the threshold of summer and ifany such injuries suffered in the fall by the petitioner are giving him trouble,they are likely to subside with the on-set of summer. The allegations againstthe petitioner are very serious. It is a matter of common knowledge thatthe incidence of crime against the newly married women in the society is ona steep rise and perhaps it may not be too much to say that the very institution of marriage in this ancient land where women were looked upon withgreat respect and as equal partners in every possible walk of life, are beingsubjected to such inhuman treatment. Therefore, in an attempt to restoreage-old values of life, the individuals allegedly concerned in the perpetrationof such crime, cannot be dealt with in a light-hearted manner. Therefore, in an attempt to restoreage-old values of life, the individuals allegedly concerned in the perpetrationof such crime, cannot be dealt with in a light-hearted manner. If we areconfronted with such circumstances as in the present case, where the case ofthe prosecution is supported with one voice by the closest relations of theunfortunate deceased wife, without any other intervening circumstance tillingi n favour of the accused, the right of liberty of such persons should remainsuspended till at least the recording of the statements of material witnesses. But at the same time the Trial Court must make a genuine effort to expeditiously record such evidence so that the right of cross-examination vesting inthe accused for testing the veracity of such evidence is given a full play. Ofcourse, nothing said above should be interpreted as an indication of the guiltof the petitioner. Such observations at such interim stages are made in orderto see the prima fade nature of the case and nothing more. Still even theevidence of material witnesses has not been recorded. There is no groundfor grant of bail at this stage. The petition is dismissed.