JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The applicant Gopal and Janardhan are stated to have been facing trial on the charges under section 304-B IPC. They are the elder brothers of Prakash, the husband of the deceased Smt. Rajkumari. It is alleged that the husband and other in-laws of Smt. Rajkumari used to harass and treat her with cruelty for demand for dowry. She died of asphyxia under circumstances other than normal. 3. In the course of arguments learned counsel for Gopal applicant pointed out that on identical facts Janardhan another co-accused in the case was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore there were no facts distinguishing the case of present accused Gopal from that of aforesaid at this stage. Bhanwarlal-complainant in the case has already moved an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to Janardhan by the learned Sessions Judge vided his order dated 27.1.99. 4. I have heard on both the applications together with a view to form an opinion as whether any notice was required to be issued to Janardhan on the application filed by Bhanwarlal and whether the facts and circumstances of the present case may justify the release of accused Gopal on bail in this case. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Gopal pointed out that no specific allegations were made against Gopal in the FIR and that simply general accusations were made against him and other in-laws. It was further pointed out that husband of the deceased was already in jail. Learned counsel appearing in behalf of Bhanwarlal applicant in S.B. Cr. Misc. bail cancellation No. 1945/99 submitted that the husband of the deceased had already gone in adoption to another family but Janardhan had sought bail on the false representation that he himself had gone to in adoption in that family. 6. Looking into the contents of the FIR, other material available in the case diary and considering the arguments advanced by both the sides particularly including the fact that the husband of the deceased had gone in adoption in another family, I think it a fit case for granting bail to accused applicant Gopal. 7. 6. Looking into the contents of the FIR, other material available in the case diary and considering the arguments advanced by both the sides particularly including the fact that the husband of the deceased had gone in adoption in another family, I think it a fit case for granting bail to accused applicant Gopal. 7. Accordingly, the bail application No. 1783/99 filed on behalf of accused applicant Gopal is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant Gopal accused in F.I.R. No. 225/98 Police Station Ranoli shall be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties in the amount of Rs. 10,000 each with personal bond in the amount of Rs. 20,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court. The S.B. Cr. Misc. bail (for cancellation) No. 1945/99 filed by applicant-complainant Bhanwarlal has no merit, hence, it is rejected.Bail (Cancellation) application no. 1945 filled by Bhanwar Lal is rejected being devoid of merit. *******