JUDGMENT 1. -This bail application has been moved under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, on behalf of the accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No. 186/96 of P.S., Bhadra registered under sections 304-B & 498-A IPC, after similar application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 74/96. 2. The accused-petitioner has been challenged along with her mother and brother with the allegations that they committed cruelty on Smt. Rachna, who was daughter of Madan Lal informant, demanding dowry and as a result she died under the circumstances those are covered under section 304-B, PC and so, on filing of charge-sheet under section 304-B as well as under section 498-A, IPC, as is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, accused-per-sons have been charged for commission of offences under the aforesaid sections and, in the alternative, under section 306 IPC. 3. Presently, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the father of the deceased Rachna being an Advocate, in his delayed FIR, has levelled serious charges of demand of dowry beginning in the year 1994 and, lastly, with the alleged demand of scooter on the eve of marriage of his younger sister in the year 1996. In the intervening period, there was no demand of dowry. Besides, while citing a number of letters purporting to have been written by Madan Lal Sharma himself to his daughter, it is also further argued that Madan Lal or any body else from his side never had expressed any grudge or grievance in record to alleged demand of dowry from the side of the accused-persons. Besides, admittedly the petitioner lived at Bombay and while living separately and having been operated, she is having an adoptive son aged about 11 years who is also ailing and is admitted in Jaipur Hospital. The petitioner's mother has been bailed out while her brother is also under custody. The trial would naturally take long time. The accused-petitioner could not have any motive to have killed the deceased and it was a case of simplicitor commission of suicide by the deceased and, as is usual, her father taking undue advantage of the situation, has prosecuted his son-in-law, besides the latter's mother and sister. The petitioner could not have benefited out of the alleged demand of dowry and the allegations so made are apparently false. The petitioner could not have benefited out of the alleged demand of dowry and the allegations so made are apparently false. Besides, since investigation has been completed and the petitioner is confined to custody, her detention is not warranted for any purpose of smooth conclusion of the trial. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor while challenging the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, citing letters dated 8.1.1994 and 17.1.1994 written by Smt. Rachna to her father, has clearly alleged that the petitioner abetted the acts of cruelty being committed on her by her mother-in-law as well as her husband. As and when the petitioner happens to visit her house, the commission or acts of cruelty aggravated and she was often confronted with demand of dowry. Presently, the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused also cannot be brushed aside as a false one. 5. That being so, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that was revealed from the investigation, prima facie, the deceased was subjected to cruelty, as is defined under section 498-A IPC relating to demand of dowry within the period of seven years of her marriage and, therefore, as the medical evidence reveals, the cause of death being administration/consumption of poison, as is confirmed by the Medical Board. Smt. Rachna's death has occurred in the circumstances as are defined under section 304-B, IPC and, therefore, in view of the fact that a presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act comes into operation. 6. That being so, prima facie there is a strong case to believe that the present petitioner was playing a dominant role in commission of the aforesaid offences and, therefore, her mother having been released on either humanitarian consideration, merely because her mother has been bailed out, she is not entitled to bail. 7. On perusal of the documents relied upon and the charge-sheet under section 173(5), Criminal Procedure Code by the prosecution, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since there appears to be a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC and complicity therein of the petitioner, presently, cannot be excluded. 8. In the result, this is not a fit case to release the accused-petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, this bail petition is rejected. 8. In the result, this is not a fit case to release the accused-petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, this bail petition is rejected. However, the learned trial judge is directed that he should examine important prosecution witnesses including Madan Lal and Medical Officers at the earliest and rest of the prosecution witnesses should be examined thereafter. On completion of the examination of the material prosecution witnesses, if so advised, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move again for bail.Bail Petition rejected. *******