JUDGMENT 1. -Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Also heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Permission granted to him shall not be treated as a precedent. Perused the case diary of the FIR No. 24/99 registered at Police Station, Badi Khatu under sections 498-A & 406 of the IPC. 2. Petitioner No. 1-Sayed Makbool Ahmed is the father of Jakir Hussain and the petitioner No. 2-Smt. Salama Begum is the mother of Jakir Hussain. Jakir Hussain, admittedly was married to the complainant Smt. Naseema Bano in the month of April, 1994 according to the Muslim Rites. It appears that on the basis of a complaint filed by Smt. Naseema Bano, the daughter-in-law of the present petitioners, the police has registered a case under sections 498-A & 406 of the IPC in compliance of the directions given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Badi Khatu under sub-sec. (3) of Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not a case where the Station House Officer of the Police Station has exercised his discretion in the matter of registration of the case. He has merely complied with the directions given to him under sub-sec. (3) of Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the same was binding on him. 3. According to the averments made in the complaint filed by Smt. Naseema Bano, the marriage took place on 7.4.1994 at Badi Khatu. A daughter was born to Smt. Naseema Bano and that daughter is presently four years old and residing with her mother at Badi Khatu. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, some articles were given in dowry but the husband parents-in-law of the complainant Smt. Naseema Bano were not satisfied. It is also alleged that the husband of the complainant used to beat the complainant and ill-treat her but the complainant tolerated this for some time. It is also alleged that Rs. 20,000/- was demanded by the in-laws of the complainant for the purpose of sending the complainant's husband to some foreign country. Para No. 4 of the complaint filed by Smt. Naseema Bano shows that before the birth of her daughter, her parents visited her in-laws' house with a view to take the complainant to their house. The complainant's in-laws were not prepared to send the complainant to her parent's House and this resulted in some altercations. Para No. 4 of the complaint filed by Smt. Naseema Bano shows that before the birth of her daughter, her parents visited her in-laws' house with a view to take the complainant to their house. The complainant's in-laws were not prepared to send the complainant to her parent's House and this resulted in some altercations. It is alleged that after altercation, the complainant was deprived of her ornaments and allowed to proceed with her father and since then the complainant is residing at her parents' house. It is also alleged that her husband is residing in Saudi Arabia and on 9.4.1999, her husband visited the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- at threaded to desert her. It is also alleged that the complainant's husband caused simple beating to the complainant and thereby injured. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations made by the complainant-Smt. Naseema Bano are totally false. It is submitted by him that Jakir Hussain had divorced Smt. Naseema Bano in the year 1996 and intimated to her about the divorce by sending a letter and in view of the divorce, there was no occasion for the complainant's husband to have demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant or her parents. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are living in a separate house and they are in no way involved in the alleged commission of offences. He has, therefore, prayed that the petitioners be given the benefit of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is well known that making accusations is easier than proving them and unless the allegations are proved, mere allegations cannot be sufficient to deprive any person of his life or personal liberty. Even in the most heinous offences like murders, densities and rapes, the presumption of innocence is available to the accused persons and the prosecution has to prove the allegations in order to secure the conviction as well as for depriving them of the right to life or personal liberty. Human nature is what it is and Courts cannot ignore their duty to scrutinise evidence before drawing presumption about the questions of fact. 6. In the instant case, the complainant is living at her parents' house for the last four years. Human nature is what it is and Courts cannot ignore their duty to scrutinise evidence before drawing presumption about the questions of fact. 6. In the instant case, the complainant is living at her parents' house for the last four years. Her husband-Jakir Hussain left India for a foreign country approximately at the same time when she left her in laws' house for her parents' house. The petitioners who are the parents of Jakir Hussain are reported to be living separately which is quite natural because if Jakir Hussain was living in a foreign country, it was impossible for his parents to live with him in India. 7. Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, I feel inclined to allow this bail, application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application filed by the petitioners Sayed Makbool Ahmed and Smt. Salama Begum is hereby allowed and it is ordered that in the event of their arrest in connection with the FIR No. 24/99 registered at Police Station Badi Khatu, District Nagaur, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing one surety of Rs. 5,000/- and a personal bond in the like amount subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners after their release on bail, shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Police Officer conducting investigation as and when necessary. (ii) They will not temper with the evidence in any manner. (iii) They will not leave India without previous permission of the Court competent to take cognizance under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. (iv) This bail order shall remain operative till the date of filing of the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The Station House Officer of the Police Station shall give notice to the petitioners about the date of presentation of the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court and if necessary, the petitioners shall remain present in the Court on the date of presentation of the challan. Bail allowed. *******