Honble YAMIN, J.–There two petitions have been preferred u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. Petition No. 1221/97 being petition on behalf of husband while petition No.1162/97 being petition on behalf of other relations of the husband. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case diary. (3). The case of the prosecution is that on 8.5.1997 Mamta consumed pesticide at about 8.00 a.m. She died on the same day. Proceedings u/S. 174 Cr.P.C. were started and during those proceedings, statement of Mst. Mamta was recorded in hospital of Kapasan. She stated to SHO that she did not have any quarrel with either of the petitioners. On 20.5.1997, Madanlal, who is the father of deceased, submitted a written report to the S.P. Chittorgarh alleging that Mamta was married to Devilal 5 or 6 years before the occurrence. The husband as well as other petitioners used to harass Mamta and demanded dowry. They used to beat her. On 8.5.1997 he was not informed about the death of Mamta and it was Bheru Shankar, Patwari, who informed him at abuot 4.00 p.m. that Mamta had consumed pesticide. It was further alleged that a false case of suicide has been made in connivance with the doctor and the police, while in reality it was a dowry death. The police registered a case u/S. 498-A & 304 IPC and started investigation. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are being falsely roped in. My attention has been drawn to the statement of Mst. Mamta which was recorded by the SHO in presence of Dr. Goyal in which Mamta stated she and her grand mother-in-law had a quarrel and thereafter Mamta had consumed pesticide. It was her adopted brother Balu who brought her to hospital. She also stated that she was married when she was minor and that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband did not quarrel with her and tha t she was married 13 years ago. She further stated that when she consumed the pesticide, none of them was present in the house. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of this statement submitted that no case u/S. 304-B was made out. She further stated that when she consumed the pesticide, none of them was present in the house. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of this statement submitted that no case u/S. 304-B was made out. He has also submitted an invitation card of marriage of Mamta from which it is disclosed that the marriage of Mamta with petitioner Devilal was performed some time in the month of Dece- mber, 1985. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no case u/S. 304-B IPC was made out and hence all the petitioners deserve anticipatory bail. (5). On the other hand, learned PP and the counsel appearing on behalf of complainant submitted that it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail because the father of deceased reported to the police that Mamta was being treated cruely and that there was always a demand of dowry. They also submitted that when a matter regarding unnatural death of daughter-in-law in her father-in- laws house is under investigation, it is not prudent for High Court to grant anticipatory bail. Reliance has been placed on Samunder Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1). It may be stated that the FIR mentions that the marriage took place some time 5 or 6 years but the father of deceased, Madan Lal, does not tell any date of marriage. In his statement u/S. 161 he stated that the marriage took place about 7 or 8 years ago while in the FIR he has stated that the marriage had taken place 5 or 6 years ago. When an invitation card submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it might be forged one but he was not in a position to show any invitation card sent by the father of the girl to the invitees nor there is any other documentary evidence with the complainant about the date of marriage. Some of the witnesses have stated that the marriage has taken place 7 or 8 years ago and others have stated that it had taken place 5 or 6 years ago. They are not definite. While the petitioners have submitted an invitation card of the marriage which mentions that the marriage had taken place in the month of December, 1985. Some of the witnesses have stated that the marriage has taken place 7 or 8 years ago and others have stated that it had taken place 5 or 6 years ago. They are not definite. While the petitioners have submitted an invitation card of the marriage which mentions that the marriage had taken place in the month of December, 1985. So prima facie it appears that the marriage had taken place in the year 1985 and not as stated in the FIR by the father of deceased. It has been submitted that the police in league with the petitioners has spoiled the case. The fact as stands clear from the diary is that dying declaration was recorded by the SHO in presence of Dr. Goyal who certified on the dying declaration that it was recorded in his presence. Mamta herself stated that her marriage had taken place about 13 years ago. She stated that she had herself consumed the pesticide because she had a quarrel with her grand mother-in-law. (6). She absolved the other petitioners in her statement. Though none of the petitioners is said to be present at the time when the statement of Mamta was recorded on 8.5.1997 because it was her adoptive brother who brought her to hospital. From the evidence I find that there is evidence to the effect that cruel treatment was being given by the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law to the deceased. Presently the case may be of Secs. 306 & 498-A IPC which is also non-bailable. (7). For Smt. Moti Bai, it has been submitted that she is a lady of about 90 years and could not have harassed the deceased except by spoken words, therefore, she may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned PP did agree for Smt. Moti Bai who is 90 years of age. but for other petitioners, he has opposed the petition submitting that a case u/S. 498-A or 306 IPC is made out against Smt. Lehari, Ramlal and Devilal. (8). In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to Smt. Lehari Bai, Ramlal and Devilal, therefore, their bail application is hereby rejected. but for other petitioners, he has opposed the petition submitting that a case u/S. 498-A or 306 IPC is made out against Smt. Lehari, Ramlal and Devilal. (8). In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to Smt. Lehari Bai, Ramlal and Devilal, therefore, their bail application is hereby rejected. But the petition of Smt. Moti Bai wife of Late Shri Naval Ram is granted and it is ordered that in case of her arrest in relation to FIR No. 162/97 of Police Station Kapasan, she may be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- together with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the I.O. till after one month of presentation of challan. In case challan is presented against her, she may obtain regular bail from the Court concerned. She will bound by these conditions: (i) that she make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that she shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that she shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.