Sat Pal, J. ( 1 ) HIS is a petition for grant of bail under Section 43911of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that deceased Mayadevi was married to the petitioner about two years before the date of occur-rence. It has been alleged by the father of the deceased that he had givendowry worth Rs. 11,000. 00 one cycle, watch, radio, wall clock etc. It isfurther alleged that the father of the deceased paid a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00to the petitioner to start a factory, but inspite of this the petitioner and hismother used to demand further dowry. It is then alleged that the deceasedhad come to the house of her parents 15 days before the date of occurrenceand she had told her father that her-in-laws were demanding money andagainst that demand the father had paid Rs. 1300. 00 and had given one sareeand blouse. It is further alleged that on 31/05/1992, the deceased wasburnt by the petitioner, his mother Gomati and his brother Montu. ( 3 ) MR. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner submitted that deceased had filed a complaint before the Crimesagainst Women Cell, New Delhi on 29. 11. 91, but no allegation was madeagainst the petitioner. He drew my attention to the said complaint copy ofwhich is at page 20 of the paper book, wherein it was stated by the deceased that her mother-in-law Gomati, sister-in-law Bhagwan Devi, brother-in-law (Devar) Gole and elder brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani)used to beat her and told her to bring more money from her parents. Inthis complaint she, however, stated that if her husband was ready to keepher safely she was ready to live with him in a separate house. The learnedcounsel drew my attention to the proceedings held before the C. A. W. Cellfrom December, 1991 to 30/04/1992. On 30/03/1992 thedeceased stated that her in-laws should be directed to return her articles ofdowry but on 30/04/1992 she stated that she had started living with herhusband separately and thereafter the case was closed. The learned Counsel,therefore, submitted that no case is made out under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code asthere was no demand of dowry by the petitioner. He submitted that forreturn of articles of dowry, a case could be made out under Section 406 IPCand for that offence the maximum punishment was three years. The learned Counsel,therefore, submitted that no case is made out under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code asthere was no demand of dowry by the petitioner. He submitted that forreturn of articles of dowry, a case could be made out under Section 406 IPCand for that offence the maximum punishment was three years. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel further submitted that the petitioner himselfburnt his arms and thigh while saving the deceased and in this connectionhe drew my attention to DD No. 71-B dated 1/06/1992 (copy of whichis at page 24 of the paper book wherein it has been stated that petitionerwas admitted in the hospital in burnt condition and was brought by H. C. Dharam Singh to the hospital. He also drew my attention to the MLC ofthe petitioner which shows that the petitioner was admitted in the J. P. N. Hospital on 1. 6. 92 and he got burnt injuries to his left arm, forearm, leftthigh and right arm. Learned Counsel also submitted that the petitionerwas granted interim bail by the Sessions Court from 4. 7. 92 to 16. 12. 92 because of the burnt injuries he had suffered. He, therefore, contended that thepetitioner should be released on bail. ( 5 ) MR. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Statedrew my attention to the statement of the father of the deceased recordedunder Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it has been allegedthat the petitioner tried to kill his wife twice earlier. The learned Counselalso drew my attention to DD-5a dated 27. 1. 92 wherein it is stated thatthe deceased has alleged that the petitioner had abused her. Learnedcounsel also drew my attention to the MLC of the petitioner which showsthat the petitioner was admitted in the J. P. N. Hospital on 1/06/1992,but no date of discharge has been mentioned therein. The learned Counselsubmitted that in fact the petitioner had left the hospital on the same daywithout permission of the hospital authorities and this fact will be proved bythe prosecution during the course of trial of the case Learned Counsel submitted that though the Counsel for the petitioner got burnt injuries when he triedto save the deceased (wife) but the M. L. C. shows that he informed the doctorat the time of admission in the hospital that he was burnt by his own wife. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that in the light of the aforesaidfacts and circumstances a case is prima facie made out against the petitionerunder Section 304b/498a or under Section 498a/302 IPC. He further contended that even in case the deceased has committed suicide because of theill-treatment by the petitioner, a case is made out against the petitionerunder Section 306 Indian Penal Code and even in that case the petitioner is not entitledto bail. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions madeby the learned Counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. According to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, thepetitioner and the deceased were living in a separate house from 30/04/1992. The father of the deceased in his statement before the S. D. M. on 1. 6. 92alleged that the petitioner and his mother used to demand money and articlesof dowry. He specifically alleged that the deceased came to his house about 15days before the date of occurrence (i. e. on or about 15/05/1992) and hadtold him that her in-laws were demanding money and the complainant hadpaid Rs. 800. 00 on that date and another sum of Rs. 500. 00 alongwith onesaree and one blouse a week before the date of occurrence. From theseallegations, it appears that the money etc. was demanded by the petitioneras at that time the deceased was living with the petitioner and not with anyother members of her in-laws. The father of the deceased had also allegedthat the petitioner, his mother and younger brother had tried to burn hisdaughter twice earlier. The deceased admittedly had died because of burninjuries and it appears to be an unnatural death. At the time of burning ofthe deceased, besides petitioner none else was present. Further in para 6of the petition it has been stated that the petitioner was severaly injuredwhile extinguishing the fire and trying to save the deceased but the M. L. C. of the petitioner shows that the petitioner stated before the doctor that hegot burnt injuries because he was burnt by his own wife. Keeping in viewthe aforesaid facts. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to bereleased on bail. Accordingly, the bail petition is dismissed. ( 7 ) LOWER Court records be sent back forthwith. The observationsgiven hereinabove will not have any bearing on the merits of the case.