VIRENDRA SARAN, J. ( 1 ) THESE are three connected bail applications. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 3122 (B) of 1993 Tamn Kumar Singh alias Bablu is the applicant. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 3422 (B) of 1993 Vireshwar Singh is the applicant and in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3421 (B) of 1993 Smt. Vidyawati is the applicant. All the above named persons are in jail in connection with Crime No. 157 of 1992 of P. S. Lalganj, District Rae Bareli, for the offences U/s. 498n 304b/201, I. P. C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Previous bail application of the applicants have been rejected by Honble K. C. Bhargawa, J. In bail application of Tamn Kumar Singh alias Bablu Honble K. C. Bhargawa, J. passed an order on 31. 8. 1993 releasing the case and directed it to be laid before the Honble Senior Judge on the same day for nomination of another Judge. On 2. 9. 1993 the Honble Senior Judge nominated me in this case. Similar orders had earlier been passed by Honble K. C. Bhargawa, 1. In other two connected bail applications and the Honble Senior Judge has nominated me to hear the bail application. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Sri I. B. Singh learned counsel for the complainant and learned State counsel at length. The prosecution case as disclosed in the F. I. R. is that Smt. Indu was married to applicant Tarnn Kumar Singh alias Bablu in the year 1980. Informant Brahmjeet Singh is the father of Smt. Indu who resides in Yadav Nagar Delhi. Applicant Vireshwar Singh and applicant Smt. Vidyawati are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of Smt. Indu. It is alleged in the F. I. R. that in the marriage informant had spent about Rs. 90,000. 00 and had met other demands of the applicants. After some time when Smt. Indu came to her parental house she informed that there was a demand of a motor cycle and the informant gave Rs. 25,00. 00 in lieu of motor cycle but even then Smt. Indu was treated with cruelty in her marital home. The F. I. R. goes on to state that 8-9 months prior to the incident when Smt. Indu had gone to her parental house, she has informed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were making a demand of Rs. 50,000. 25,00. 00 in lieu of motor cycle but even then Smt. Indu was treated with cruelty in her marital home. The F. I. R. goes on to state that 8-9 months prior to the incident when Smt. Indu had gone to her parental house, she has informed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were making a demand of Rs. 50,000. 00 for the purpose of doing some business and they had further told Smt. Indu that in case the money was not arranged consequence may be bad. Hence the informant did not send Smt. Indu to her Sasural but after some time Rajeshwar Singh, uncle-in-law of Smt. Indu came and took Smt. Indu on the assurance that she would be given proper treatment. It is further mentioned in the F. I. R. that on 2/9/1992 Manoj, younger brother of applicant Tarun Kumar Singh informed the informant on telephone that Smt. Indu was critically ill and requested the informant to reach Lalganj without loss of time. After two days i. e. on 4/6/1992 when the informant was about to proceed to Lalganj there was another telephonic call from Manoj and this time Manoj told that his bhabhi had expired. The informant thereafter proceeded to Lalganj by train and reached there in morning of 5. 6. 1992 when the informant reached at the house of applicants at Lalganj and talked with them. He was told that Smt. Indu was ill for the last 15-20 days and was treated at Lalganj and Raebareli. But she developed high temperature and she died on 3/6/1992 at 12 noon. She was cremated on that very day. It was further mentioned in the F. I. R. that body was taken in a truck for cremation, although the Hindus take the body on their shoulders for cremation. According to the informant he got him seated in a bus. He went to his own village in district of Sultanpur where his wife was. From Sultanpur he returned to Delhi. ( 3 ) THE F. I. R. of this case was lodged on 16/6/1992 at 3. 20 p. m. at P. S. Lalganj district Raebareli. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for applicants has submitted that allegations made in the F. I. R. regarding demand of dowry and cruelty is false and after thought. From Sultanpur he returned to Delhi. ( 3 ) THE F. I. R. of this case was lodged on 16/6/1992 at 3. 20 p. m. at P. S. Lalganj district Raebareli. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for applicants has submitted that allegations made in the F. I. R. regarding demand of dowry and cruelty is false and after thought. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there are not even one witness of the place of in-laws of Smt. Indu in support of the fact of any such demand or cruel behaviour. He further drew my attention to photo copies of certain letters of mother of Smt. Indu and one letter of Smt. Indu written to her sister-in-law from Delhi. There letter had not been filed in any of the earlier bail application. There is no denial about the genuineness of these letters in counter offidavit filed by Brahmjeet Singh, father of the deceased. At the time of argument the learned counsel for the complainant as also learned counsel for the state did not challenge the genuineness of these letters. These letters even otherwise appear to be genuine. The letters of mother of the deceased appear to have been written in the normal course. There is no whisper in anyone of these letters that may go to support the story of demand of dowry. One of these letters bear the date 12/3/1992 (3 months prior to the incident) and it mentions that Smt. Indu was not keeping well and she also having pain in her limbs. The mother of Indu had cautioned her to take care. She had also written to Indu to give respect and love to her mother-in-law. The letter of Indu addressed to her sister-in-law spells out normal family relations and the reading thereof does not show that the relations between her husband and herself or in-laws were restrained. In this letter she also wrote that she had gone to a lady doctor who told her that in such a conditions husband and wife both are to be medically-examined, ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the applicant the F. I. R. was lodged after about 13 days of the incident and it was lodged for ulterior purpose. Learned counsel further argued that the grievances in the F. I. R. that dead body was taken on a truck for cremation was also not justified because the body was to the Ghat of village Megaso. Due to long distance covered, it was but natural to take the body by some vehicle. Learned Counsel referred to the statement of informant recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. wherein he has stated that the body has been taken or a truck to village Kothariy a where there is a burning ghat named as Megaso ghat Learned counsel further argued that it was the hot month of June, and if the body was not cremated there would have been lot of complications due to formation of gases and putrification. Learned counsel has further argued that as soon as Smt. Indus condition became serious telephonic information was sent to her father and after the death of Smt. Indu another telephonic message was sent on 3rd itself. On this point the allegation of the prosecution is that the second telephonic message was given on 4th. (Sic Paragraph) ( 6 ) THE above submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants are not without force. However, I would not like to express further opinion as it may prejudice the trial one way or the other. The letters of mother of Smt. Indu and letter of Indu herself leave a question mark in my mind regarding the correctness of allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty as mentioned in the F. I. R. and also not to be overlooked altogether. The explanation for lodging report with delay of about 13 days will also have to be examined at the time of trial. I have also gone through the entire statements of witnesses annexed with these bail applications. A perusal of these statement go to show that a number of villagers had gone at the time of cremation of the body and there was no secrecy of the cremation. It may also be mention here that in the present bail application a photo copy of the charge sheet has been filed which goes to show that there is not even one witness of the village of the incident to say that death of Smt. Indu was unnatural death. It may also be mention here that in the present bail application a photo copy of the charge sheet has been filed which goes to show that there is not even one witness of the village of the incident to say that death of Smt. Indu was unnatural death. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the conduct of in laws of Smt. Indu in not informing police about the death of Indu shows that they were trying to conceal things. I am unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that if the death was due to illness there was no occasion to call the police. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned State Counsel have argued that if the death occurred within 7 years of the marriage then it was necessary that an inquest report should have been prepared. I am unable to accept this submission. Section 174 (3), Cr. P. C. mentions 5 conditions when such a procedure is to be adopted. They are: (1) If there is a suicide by a woman within 7 years of her marriage. (2) If there is reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman. (3) if any relative of the woman makes a request to police officer to draw an in quest report. (4) When cause of death of such woman is in doubt (5) If the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient to do so. In the present case none of the above conditions where there. Any respectable person whose young female member of the house has died would not like to police officer to deal with the body and take out the cloths from the body in the presence of Punchase and draw an inquest report Such report would cause great hurt to the sentiments of everybody. ( 7 ) LASTLY, the learned counsel for the complainant raised an objection in the bail application of Tarun Kumar Singh alias Bablu on the ground that applicant Tarun Kumar Singh has been granted parole (short term bail) which has to expire on 2nd October, 1993, and as such he is not in custody and bail cannot be granted to him. It was pointed out that parole was granted to him as he was appearing in I. A. S. and P. C. S. Examinations. It was pointed out that parole was granted to him as he was appearing in I. A. S. and P. C. S. Examinations. ( 8 ) IN my opinion this court has jurisdiction to consider bail of a person who has been granted temporary bail after surrendering himself before the Court. The word custodyt occurring in Section 439, Cr. P. C. does not mean that the person must be in jail. A person on short term bail also continue to be in custody. The word custody was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar. The Supreme Court held that where the accused had appeared and surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge would have jurisdiction to consider his bail application. An accused can be in custody not merely when the police arrests him, produces him before the Magistrate and gets a remand to judicial custody or other custody. He can be stated to be in judicial custody when he surrenders before the court. In my opinion if a different interpretation is given to the word custody it may lead to unjustification. There may be a case where an accused has been granted short term bail due to the fact that he is on death bed. If the argument of the learned state counsel is accepted it would mean that neither his bail application can be considered on merits nor he can be granted short term bail unless he is lifted from death bed and sent to jail. Such a course would cause hardship and may lead even to his death. Lalji Maurya The interpretation to the word Custody should, therefore, be made in a manner which makes the provisions reasonable and fair. Moreover a person State who is on short term bail is not wholly free. He is in custody of the Court y virtue of the contract of the sureties to produce him in court whenever required. In the premise I hold that person on short term bail continues to be in custody of the court and his bail application can be considered under section 439, Cr. P. C. Thus, a person who has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and who has been released on temporarily bail continues to be in custody within the meaning of Section 439, Cr. P. C. Thus, a person who has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and who has been released on temporarily bail continues to be in custody within the meaning of Section 439, Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the state also pointed out that as bail applications of the applicants having been rejected earlier, there should exist some new ground for grant of bail. However, these bail applications have been considered on fresh material which has been placed in present bail application and was not on the record of previous bail application. However, whenever further facts are brought to the notice of the Court the entire set of facts can be considered for grant of bail. ( 10 ) SO far as the case of Smt. Vidyawati is concerned she is a woman and she has already been in jail for long-time. ( 11 ) IN view of the discussions made above the bail may be granted to the applicants. Let applicants Tarun Kumar Singh alias Bablu, Vireshwar Singh and Smt. Vidyawati be released on bail on each of their furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 12,000. 00 (Rupees twelve thousands only) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Raebareli. It is further made clear that any observations made above are only for the purpose of these bail applications and the learned trial court shall be free to decide the case on merits. Application allowed. .