JUDGMENT 1. - This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi and Ganesh against whom charge-sheet has now been filed for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Their first bail application was rejected by this court vide order dated 12.8.2005 in view of the fact that investigation was still going on, keeping in view the nature of accusatio., and all other facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is inter-alia contended that deceased Smt. Savita was married to petitioner Ganesh on 26.5.2003 and died of burns on the intervening night of 6/7.8.2004 about which FIR was lodged by her father on 1.9.2004 i.e. after about 25 days of the occurrence. It is submitted that Ganesh was not in Sikar on the date of occurrence and was in Nasik. It is submitted that the statements of mother, father Bal Mukund, who is the complainant, the cousin Sanjay Kumar, neighbours Shri Narayana and Ravi Mishra were recorded during the proceedings u/s. 174 Cr.PC. Bal Mukund, the father, stated that the relations between his daughter and her in-laws were normal and there was normal treatment with his daughter on their part. A day prior to her death, brother-in-law (devar) of deceased had come in a jeep to fetch her from her parental house and she had accompanied him to her in-laws house at Sikar. It was also stated by him that she went quite happily to the house of her-in-laws. He further stated that " ------eq>s ,slh dksbZ vk'kadk ugha gS fd esjh iq=h dks llqjky ds i{k ds fdlh lnL; us ekjus dk iz;kl fd;k gks ;k vkRegR;k dk iz;kl fd;k gks esjh iq=h us u rks dHkh llqjky dh ckr esa ijs'kkuh dk ftdz fd;k u gh esjh iRuh dks ,slh dksbZ ckr dghA----- " 3. Referring to the aforesaid statement, learned counsel has strenuously submitted that the FIR is the result of after thought and has been lodged with some oblique motive or to harass the petitioner and his family members who are reputed persons of the society. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the deceased was pregnant and as a result of an accidental fall from the stairs started bleeding. She was got admitted to the hospital from where she was got discharged on 6.8.2004 by her parents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the deceased was pregnant and as a result of an accidental fall from the stairs started bleeding. She was got admitted to the hospital from where she was got discharged on 6.8.2004 by her parents. She even telephonically informed her parents that she had reached Sikar safely. Even in the letter written by the mother to the SDM, Sikar, there is no allegation of any demand of dowry. Similarly situated co-accused Sanwarmal has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court vide a detailed and well considered order dated 2.6.2005 and the case of the present petitioners is not in any way distinguishable from his case. They, therefore, deserve to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity. He has also submitted that even if the allegations are taken on their face value, the demand is for business which cannot be said to be dowry demand. She appears to have committed suicide as the dead-body was retrieved from the go-down after breaking open its gates. There is no allegation against the petitioners that if released on bail, they would tamper with the prosecution witnesses or will not be available for trial. Smt. Santosh who is also married in the same family, has in her affidavit denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. Petitioner Smt. Gita Devi being a woman also deserves to be dealt with sympathetically. 4. Learned PP as well as learned counsel for the complainant have both- vehemently opposed the bail application. They have submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been duly and satisfactorily explained by Bal Mukund, the complainant and the allegations against the petitioners are also very grave. A young lady has lost her life within two years of the marriage and that too by burns and there does not appear to be any ostensible reason for her to commit suicide without any rhyme or reason. They have also submitted that the trial may be got expedited instead of granting bail to the petitioners. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have gone through the entire material placed before me for perusal. 6. They have also submitted that the trial may be got expedited instead of granting bail to the petitioners. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have gone through the entire material placed before me for perusal. 6. It may not be just, reasonable and appropriate to make any definite observation on the merits of the case at this stage, for, it may prejudice the case of either side at the trial. But, having regard to the rival submissions made at the bar, the fact that similarly situated co-accused Sanwarmal has already been enlarged on bail by the order of a co-ordinate bench of this court and the case of the present petitioners is not in any way graver or distinguishable from his case and rather rests on better footing in view of the submissions made in support of their bail application and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge them on bail. 7. In the result, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.PC. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners Smt. Gita Devi w/o Sanwarmal and Ganesh s/o Sanwarmal shall be released on bail in FIR No. 203/04 PS Laxmangarh Distt. Sikar for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to appear before that court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial.Bail allowed. *******