SAT PAL, J ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release of the petitioner on bail. ( 2 ) AS per the allegations made in the FIR, lodged at the instance of the brother of the deceased, the petitioner was married to Sadhna in the year 1986. It has been alleged that the petitioner used to have quarrel with the deceased over dowry. On 14th July, 1991 the petitioner had a quarrel with his wife in the presence of the complainant and during the quarrel the deceased is alleged to have stated that on the earlier day also the petitioner had a quarrel with the deceased and had even picked up the knife to hit her. When the deceased informed her brother about the said incident, the petitioner is alleged to have retorted that if she would trouble him, he would do the same. lt has further been alleged that thereafter the deceased Sadhna went upstairs and set herself on fire. In his effort to save his sister, the complainant also got some burns in his hands but he could not save her. ( 3 ) MR. Sud, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the statements of the complainant Shri Rajesh, Shri Nathu Ram, Smt. Babita (sister of the deceased) and Shri Jai Bhagwan. He contended that the allegations of dowry made by the aforesaid persons was of general nature and no specific allegation of dowry has been made against the petitioner. He further submitted that the deceased had been married, to the petitioner about six years before the date of occurrance and during this period she was not keeping good health and could not conceive any child and because of these masons she might have committed suicide. He also submitted that the grandmother of the deceased, who had performed the marriage ceremony of the deceased, has not been shown as a witness. The learned counsel also submitted that as per DD No. 25 dated 14th July, 1991 (In- petitioner also got burn injuries in his hands while trying to save the deceased. The learned counsel also submitted that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. ( 4 ) MR. The learned counsel also submitted that as per DD No. 25 dated 14th July, 1991 (In- petitioner also got burn injuries in his hands while trying to save the deceased. The learned counsel also submitted that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. ( 4 ) MR. SHARMA, learned counsel appearing for the State, however, submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been clearly explained by the complainant Rajesh Kumar in his statement. From the statement of the complainant it is clear that he got some burns in his hands while saving his sister on 14th July, 1991 and as such he could lodge the complaint on 15th July, 1991. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the subnmissions made by the leasrned counsel forthe parties. From the statements of Smt. Babita (sister of the deceased) and Shri Jai Bhagwan I find that there are clear allegations against the petitioner that after consuming liquor he used to beat his wife and also used to quarrel with. the deceased for not bringing suficient dowry. The complainant has also alleged in his statement that the petitioner used to have quarrel with the deceased over dowry and used to say that her grandmother had not given him anything. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstanccs I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. ( 6 ) THE observations made hercinabove will not have any bearing on the merits of the case. The lower court records be sent back forthwith.