Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner is a father-in-law of the deceased Laxmi. Offence under Section 304-B IPC has been registered against the present accused petitioner as well as his brother Lal Nath and wife Bhuri. His bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 24.7.98, hence he has filed this bail application and prayed that he may be released on bail. (2). Learned Counsel Shri Kalla relying upon the Judgment of this Court in case of Babulal Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) submitted that in this case also the complainant tried to rope into almost all the family members of the accused, therefore, he submitted that when other co-accused namely his wife and brother were released on bail by this court then there is no reason for this Court not to re- lease the present accused petitioner on bail because his case stands on similar footing with that of co-accused who have been enlarged on bail by this Court. He has also produced the photostat copy of the order dated 5.2.1998 passed by this Court (A.S.Godara,J.) in Criminal misc. bail application No. 2071/98 and order dated 17.7.98 passed in Criminal misc. bail application No.1749/98. The first bail applica- tion No. 207/98 was a joint bail application filed by Lal Nath and Smt. Bhuri. That petition was rejected qua accused Lal Nath by this Court by observing that, ``Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the investigation record, presently the bail petition of accused petitioner Lal Nath is dismissed. However, considering the fact that Bhoori Devi was a lady and other circumstances of the case and that her case was distinguishable from the case of her co-accused (Husband), there fore she was granted bail. (3). Subsequently, Lal Nath filed IIIrd bail application No. 1749/98 which was granted by this Court (A.S.Godara,J.) by observing that,`` Though it is third bail petition but since Smt. Keshar who is mother of the deceased Laxmi has been exa- mined as PW1 by the trial Court and it is also not disputed that the petitioner is husband of deceased Laxmi and accordingly, at present without entering into the merits of the case, looking to his relation and other circumstances, his case appears to be distinguishable from that of uncle-in-law of the deceased and accordingly, this petition deserves to be accepted . . (4). . (4). From the aforesaid, it is clear that the case of present accused petitioner was distinguishable than that of co-accused, therefore, those accused persons were granted bail. (5). Therefore, the submission of Mr. \Kalla that co-accused have been released on bail, therefore, this present accused should be released on bail should be rejected and it is rejected. (6). Coming to the case of Babulal (Supra), I must state that case has no application to the facts of this case. Ordinarily, in case of dowry death the accused would be mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and near relatives. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. In Babulals case (Supra) the fact which was not in dispute was that the deceased was staying with her husband at Siligudi, therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court was of the prima facie view that in such type of cases it cannot be said that father-in-law or brother-in-law were harassing the deceased for dowry. In this case the facts are totally different. Deceased Laxmi died on 18.10.1997 due to burn injury in kitchen, where as, from the post Mortem report it has become clear that her death was caused due to throttling. (7). Under the circumstances, when learned Sessions Judge has refused to release the accused on bail, then I do not see any reason to release the accused petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application fails and is hereby dismissed.