Vijender Jain ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 439 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail. ( 2 ) THE petitioner s earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court on 2 3/09/1991. The present application has been moved by the petitioner statingthat certain facts were not mentioned. It is the admitted case of the parties that themarriage between them tookplaceon 27/02/1987. The deceased Smt. Anuradha died in the intervening night of 25th and 26/10/1991. While issuingthe post mortem report on 27/10/1991, the Doctor opined that the death wasdue to consumption of Baygon Spray. ( 3 ) SHRI K. K. Sud, learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed certain documents staling that the deceased was employed in Pandt Department and wasreceiving a monthly salary of over Rs. 2,000. 00 while the petitioner husband wasemployed in Aristo Pharmaceuticals Company and was working as Regionalmanager and was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 7,379. 00after deductions. Fromthe documents filed on record it has been demonstrated that joint Savings Bankaccount and FDR were made in the name of the deceased dated 8. 9. 1991. Thepetitioner in order to reduce the Income-tax liabilities also purchased Nationalsavings Certificates on 25. 2. 1989 for an amount of Rs. 1,000. 00 and Rs. 5,000. 00 andgave the name of his wife as joint-holder. In 1988, insurance policy was taken andthe deceased was made his nominee. Even the petitioner had made the deceased100 per cent nominee for the payment of gratuity. It is averred that the deceasedanuradha was operating account and was withdrawing the money from the jointbank account. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner, thepetitioner has been a loving and caring husband and has been giving the besttreatment to the deceased. According to petitioner, the deceased was otherwise nothaving good health, the deceased was irregular in attending the office and, therefore, she was given adverse memo on 1. 7. 1991 for being irregular and for remainingon frequent long leave. The deceased has also left behind her two minor childrenborn on 17. 1. 1989 and 8. 2. 1991 at AIIMS according to the petitioner the expenses forwhich were borne by the petitioner. There is no one in the family of the petitionerto look after his mother and two minor children. 1991 for being irregular and for remainingon frequent long leave. The deceased has also left behind her two minor childrenborn on 17. 1. 1989 and 8. 2. 1991 at AIIMS according to the petitioner the expenses forwhich were borne by the petitioner. There is no one in the family of the petitionerto look after his mother and two minor children. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the State, however, has stated that all the treatment are inthe name of the deceased and it is not possible to say as to who has spent the moneyfor the treatment of the petitioner. ( 6 ) HE further argued that all these documents may be the defence of thepetitioner. I am not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the Counsel forthe State. From 1987tillthedeceaseddiedin0ctober, 1991 there is nothing adverseon record against the petitioner which may disentitle him bail as there is no pasthistory. Even otherwise it is not for me to decide as to whether the money for thetreatment was spent by the petitioner or by the deceased herself. I would also notlike to express my opinion on the merits of the case as it would influence the trial. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the partiesand perusing the documents on record. I feel that it is a fit case more so in theinterest of the minor children that the petitioner should be released on bail. In thecircumstances of the case, I order for the release of the petitioner on bail on hisfurnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 with one surety in the likeamount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/deputy Magistrate. The petitionerwill not leave the territorial jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission ofthis Court.