P. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Tej Pal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate. ( 2 ) APPLICANTS Mohd. Arif and Mohd. Aslam are elder brothers of husband of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case as contained in the FIR is that Smt. Yasmin Fatima was married to Mohd. Adil about 7 months prior to the present incident. Although the father had spent around Rs. 9 lacs to the marriage of his daughter, the in laws not satisfied with the dowry and used to harass the deceased and pressed her to bring more cash. It is stated that Mohd. Adil (husband ). Haji isslamuddin father-in-law, his two sons (the present applicants) his wife and daughters lived jointly and used to make demand of cash. Twice the first informant paid Rs. 50,000/ -. On 15th May, 1997 the first informants wife and son went to meet Smt. Yasmin Fatima when all the above aforementioned in laws and husband did not permit them to meet Yasmin Fatima and made a demand of Rs. 5 lacs. The first informant returned from Dubai on 15th June, 1997. when he was informed by somebody on telephone that his daughter was killed between the night of 11th112th June. 1997 by the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law brother-in-law and sisters-in-law. Report was lodged on 18th June, 1997, Thereafter the dead body was exhumed and postmortem examinations was conducted. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submits that there is no specific allegation against the applicants and there are general allegations and the applicants have been involved as there is tendency to rope in all the family members of the husband. It is further submitted that the deceased had conceived and was being provided medical aid as disclosed from various papers filed by the applicants, that on 11th June, 1997 when she was admitted in Mahajan Hospital and Research Centre, she developed some complication and she was shifted to Agra Health Centre where she was given treatment but she could not be saved, that soon thereafter information was given to the father of the deceased through telephone and burial was done later on. The postmortem examination report and viscera report do not disclose anything positive evidence to show that it was a case of homicidal death. The postmortem examination report and viscera report do not disclose anything positive evidence to show that it was a case of homicidal death. It is further submitted that after information was received by the parents of the victim, they started making demand of Rs. 18 lacs and a complaint was sent in this regard. Report was lodged 24 hours thereafter, it is further submitted that although the police submitted charge-sheet only on the basis that the question whether presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act arises in the present case or not can be decided by the Court, the case was later on investigated by the, CB, CID which submitted final report. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the papers filed by the complainants and some of the papers filed by the complainant show that the lady was hale and hearty and there was no cardiac complication till late night on 11th June, 1997 and there is endorsement of Dr. B. K. Agarwal that in the room in which the lady was admitted some Baba entered and remained with the deceased for about 2-3 hours, doctors and compounder were not permitted to enter the room. There are clear allegations of demand of dowry and harassment and death was caused within 7 months of the marriage. It is further submitted that the post-mortem examination was conducted 9 days after burial. Therefore, no injury could be detected. It is further submitted that in certain cases poison cannot be detected by postmortem examination or by viscera examination the learned counsel has referred to the case of Anant Lagu v. State of Bombay. ( 6 ) IT appears that there has been protracted litigations in the High Court and presently SLP is pending before Hontble Supreme Court for quashing the order dated 9th April, 1998 staying arrest of the accused. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that the death occurred within 7 months, of the marriage and there were allegations by the first informant regarding demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that the death occurred within 7 months, of the marriage and there were allegations by the first informant regarding demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased. There is however, serious dispute between the parties on the question if it was a case of unnatural death or death otherwise than under normal circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants has on the basis of the postmortem examination report, according to which the cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera examination report, which was negative for poisoning, submitted that it is a case of natural death and death was caused due to heart failure. Learned counsel for the complainant on the basis of various medical examinations of the deceased vehemently argued that the victim was hale and hearty and there was no cardiac ailment. He has further after referring to the judgment of this Court (delivered by Hon. , J. C. Mishra, J.) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5553 of 1997 argued that positive finding has been given that it is a case of unnatural death. Having gone through the judgment I find that neither such finding has been given nor such finding could have been given in proceeding under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The relevant portion of the observations is as follows: It is true that no positive evidence has been collected to indicate that the death of the deceased was homicidal. However, for attracting the offence punishable under Section 304- B all that is required is that death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. It is unnatural if it is not natural. Whether the deceased had died otherwise than under normal circumstances can be proved, even by circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to hold at this stage that death of the deceased was natural ( 8 ) ON consideration of various documents and circumstances referred to above, by the learned counsel for the complainant it would not be proper at this stage to express any opinion on the question if the death was natural one or was caused under circumstances other than normal. That would prejudice the parties at the trial and besides this the matter is sub-judice before the Honble Supreme Court. That would prejudice the parties at the trial and besides this the matter is sub-judice before the Honble Supreme Court. It may be observed here that the findings of fact in this regard can be arrived at, by the trial Court only after the parties have led evidence in support of their respective claims. The pendulum may swing either way on consideration of the entire circumstantial evidence. ( 9 ) AS pointed out above the applicants are elder brothers of the husband and there are omnibus allegations against them and there is general tendency to rope in the entire family members of the husband. In this view the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. They are, therefore, admitted to bail. ( 10 ) APPLICANTS Mohd. Arif and Mohd. Aslam involved in case Crime No. 185 of 1997 (Criminal Case No. 1405/1997) under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201. I. P. C. P. S. Lohamandi, district Agra shall be released on ball on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. Application allowed. .