JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioners Ram Prakash and Ram Kiran who apprehend their arrest in Criminal Case No. 16/2002 which has been instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant for the offences under section 498A, 304B and 147 IPC in the court of learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. They have been directed to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. Their pre-arrest bail application has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar vide order dated 8.8.2002. 2. As per the prosecution story a written report was submitted on 18.12.1996 at about 6.00 p.m. by Rajuram, the father of the present petitioners regarding suicide committed by his daughter-in-law Smt. Sushila by sprinkling kerosene oil on her and putting fire to herself, whereupon proceedings under section 174 Cr.PC. were started by the SDM, Sikar. But on 19.12.1996 at about 1.30 p.m. Deepchand, the complainant lodged another FIR with the SHO P.S. Raghunath Garh whereupon a case being FIR No. 326/96 was registered for the offence under section 304B IPC and after investigation' a charge-sheet was filed on 10.3.1997 for the offences under section 498A and 304B IPC against Shyam Sunder, the husband of the deceased only. On the same day, complainant Deep Chand filed a protest petition for taking cognizance against other accused persons which was rejected after hearing the parties vide order dated 4.4.1997. The case was committed to the court of Sessions on 5.4.1997. On 11.4.1997 learned PP filed an application under section 193 Cr.PC. before the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar which was transferred along with the sessions case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar who vide his order dated 21.6.1997 partly allowed the application and took cognizance against Mst. Tulsi Devi, the mother in law of deceased, but no cognizance was taken against the applicants and others. She was summoned through warrant of arrest. Smt. Tulsi Devi filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 217/97 before this court which was allowed and the order dated 21.6.1997 taking cognizance against her was quashed on 14.7.1997. The complainant also challenged the aforesaid order dated 21.6.1997 in S.B. Criminal Revision petition No. 356/97, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4.3.1998. Smt. Tulsi Devi filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 217/97 before this court which was allowed and the order dated 21.6.1997 taking cognizance against her was quashed on 14.7.1997. The complainant also challenged the aforesaid order dated 21.6.1997 in S.B. Criminal Revision petition No. 356/97, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4.3.1998. In the meanwhile the complainant filed a complaint on 16.9.1997 before the learned Civil judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for prosecuting and punishing the applicants and their wives and mother with the same allegations as were levelled in the FIR No. 326/97. The learned court after recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses took cognizance on 20.2.2002 against applicants Mst. Shyama, Mst. Prabhu and Mst. Tulsi and summoned them through non-bailable warrants. As indicated above, they filed anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Judge which was disallowed. Hence, the petitioners have filed this bail application and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. for quashing the order dated 20.2.2002 taking cognizance against the petitioners and others. 3. I have heard at length the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned PP on behalf of the State have also perused the record placed before me as well as the authorities cited at the bar. Since the matter legality of the order is yet to be adjudicated in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 CrPC., it would not be just reasonable and appropriate to express any opinion or to make any comment on the legal aspects and merits of case at this stage. But looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submissions made at the bar, I deem it just and proper to grant the indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. In the result, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners Ram Prakash s/o late Shri Rajuram and Ramkiran S/o late Shri Rajuram, they shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO on their furnishing a personal bond each in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO on the following conditions : 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO on the following conditions : 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner 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 any police officer; and 3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Bail Allowed With Usual Condition. *******