Mr Sat Pal, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 439 of the Code ofcri. Procedure for release of the petitioner on bail, ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner wasmarried to the deceased Anita on 26/01/1989 according to Hinducustoms and Rites. It has been alleged that at the time of marriage sufficientdowry, as desired by Anita, has been given by her brother. However, afterthe marriage, the deceased is alleged to have been harassed by the petitionerand his parents. It is further alleged that whenever the deceased alongwithher husband came to the house of her brother, they used to pressurise himfor selling the house so that they could get their share, but the brother of thedeceased had refused to accept this demand. It is further alleged that 2-3months prior to the occurrence, the petitioner came to the house of thebrother of the deceased and made a demand of Rs. 20,000. 00 for purchasing asecond hand car and he also put pressure through the deceased, but thebrother of the deceased could not fulfil the demand. It is further allegedthat on 14/06/1992, the petitioner came to the house of his in-laws andtook the deceased forcibly and while leaving, he gave a threat to his mother-in-law that next days she would weep. It is further alleged that on 1 5/06/1992 at about 6. 00 p. m. , the brother of the deceased received a telephonic message that Anita s death had taken place. The brother of thedeceased, therefore, alleged that he was having doubt that her sister Anitahad been killed by her in-laws because they were regularly demanding dowry. It may be pointed out here that the deceased had left a suicide note whereinshe had stated that she did not want to live and was dying out of her ownwill and nobody should be held responsible for her death. ( 3 ) MR. Mathur, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner submitted that the bail was declined to the petitioner by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that the brother of thedeceased had stated in his statement recorded before the S. D. M. that thealleged suicide note was not in the hand writing of his sister. Mathur, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner submitted that the bail was declined to the petitioner by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that the brother of thedeceased had stated in his statement recorded before the S. D. M. that thealleged suicide note was not in the hand writing of his sister. The learnedcounsel submitted that now a report has been received from the C. F. S. L. that the alleged suicide note was in the hand writing of the deceased Anita. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been in jailsince 16/06/1992 and in view of the report received from the C. F. S. L. heshould be released on bail. ( 4 ) MS. Gulati, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Stateadmitted that as per the report received from the C. F. S. L. , the alleged suicidenote was in the hand writing of the deceased. She. however, submitted thatin view of the allegations made by the brother of the deceased, the petitionershould not be released on bail. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions madeby the learned Counsel for the parties. Though the brother of the deceasedhas made certain allegations of dowry and threats against the petitioner,keeping in view the suicide note and report from the C. F. S. L. I am of theview that the petitioner is entitled to bail. Accordingly, I direct that thepetitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum ofrs. 20,000. 00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of thelearned Trial Court. With this order the petition stands disposed of. ( 6 ) THE observations given by me hereinabove will not have anybearing on the merits of the case.