ORDER 1. Applicant Lokman Singh is involved in Crime No. 62/1994, u/Ss.498-A, 306 and 304-B LP.C. by P.S. Purani Chawni, District Gwalior. 2. According to the allegations made by the prosecution, one Bhuribai is said to have committed suicide by throwing herself before the train on the railway track nearby her house, and she was found dead on the early morning of the date of occurrence. It was alleged that she was compelled to commit suicide on account of demand of dowry. From the evidence which has been brought in the FIR and the post mortem report, it appears that Bhuribai threw herself before a running train and she was crushed to death. It was further alleged that Bhuribai was married four years back. She lived with her husband for six months. Thereafter, demand of dowry started. According to the prosecution allegations, the family members of the husband of the deceased, like her mother-in-law and uncle-in-laws also compelled the parents of the deceased to provide certain amount of dowry, otherwise they will not keep her in their house. 3. The real elder sister of the deceased named Shardabai was also married in the same house and she was living together. It has come in her statement that her mother-in-law was so cruel that she did not allow the two sisters to live together. A partition wall was erected between the two rooms. The father-in-law of the deceased was dead. The two uncle-in-laws, the present applicant Lokman Singh and the other Phernainsh were the persons, who were acting as a guardian of the husband of the deceased. It has also come in. the statement of Shardabai that this applicant Lokman Singh had gone to intervene in the matter with her parents to provide at least 5 tolas of gold-ornaments to the mother-in-law of the deceased, otherwise they will not keep her in their house. 4. It has come in the statement of the brother of the deceased named Sobran Singh that they had managed 3 tolas of gold-ornaments and sent to the house of the deceased. In the meantime, the deceased was living at the house of her parents for one year and she was facing this agony for full one year till the ornaments worth 3 tolas of gold were provided to the uncle of her husband. In the meantime, the deceased was living at the house of her parents for one year and she was facing this agony for full one year till the ornaments worth 3 tolas of gold were provided to the uncle of her husband. Even in spite of the provision being made, for three tolas of gold-ornamts and being paid to the husband of the deceased, the deceased was even treated with cruelty as complete 5 tolas of gold-ornaments was not made good. 5. In the circumstances of the case, it appears that Bhuribai who was facing this agony and torture for quite sometime could not bear further and she was compelled to commit suicide. 6. It has also come in the statement of Sharda Bai recorded u/S 161 Cr.P.C. that just ten days back the husband of the deceased had left the village on account of frustration. The husband had come just a day before to his house, and both the deceased and the husband lived together and then again the husband left in frustration and agony certainly on account of his mother and uncles who were playing as villains in this entire episode. When the husband left without making any provision for the lady and without consoling her for future management, then she was compelled in the intervening night to commit suicide. The lady had thrown herself before the running train in the early morning and her dead body was found. These circumstances clearly indicate that it was a .case of extreme cruelty muchless a harassment which compelled the deceased Bhuribai to commit suicide. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the present applicant Lokman Singh being only the uncle of the husbm1d of the deceased, has no concern with this matter. He further argued that he was living separately and therefore his complicity in the crime could not be taken to detain him in jail and as against him, no charge u/S. 304-B could be established. 8. Even after appreciating the argument, advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, I am unable to agree only on one point. It was the applicant who himself had gone to the house of the parents of the deceased and in a cruel bargaining, he had compelled them to provide at least 5 tolas of gold-ornaments and only then their daughter would be kept in the house of his nephew. It was the applicant who himself had gone to the house of the parents of the deceased and in a cruel bargaining, he had compelled them to provide at least 5 tolas of gold-ornaments and only then their daughter would be kept in the house of his nephew. This was the act which can be only abetment. But, when even the uncle, who was the responsible person of the family having entire responsibility of the family behaved in such manner, that led the lady to conclude in loosing all hopes when the entire family was well lent and was out and out to harass her. It is, therefore, the act on the part of the applicant himself which immediately led the lady to conclude that her life will remain miserable throughout. In these compelling circumstances, suicide was committed by her. 9. Taking into consideration the evidence as above, the argument of the learned counsel raised on behalf of the applicant that no charge u/S. 304-B is made out against the applicant is not at all based on the facts. Section 304-B I.P.C. includes all the relations who take part in demand of dowry or in harassing the lady for demand of dowry being made on behalf of the family. Therefore, the appellant cannot escape from his responsibility under the garb of having no concern with the crime, when he had compelled the parents of the deceased to pay dowry after four years of the marriage. Therefore, I do not find it a fit case in which the case of the applicant could be separated from others. Prima facie he is equally responsible for the death of the lady and his case also comes under the purview of section 304- B I.P.C. The case of the applicant, even if is taken to be an abetment, he is liable to be punished equally alongwith others. 10. In view of the above, no case for bail is made out. The application for bail is accordingly rejected.