S. N. AGGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case of dowry death and in the alternative for murder under Section 304-A/498-A/34 IPC read with Section 302/309/34 IPC registered against them and others vide FIR No. 262/2006 with police Station Nabi Karim. ( 2 ) NOTICE. Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor, APP for the state accepts notice of this application on behalf of the respondent. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are two jethanis and mother-in-law of deceased rameshwari who was married to petitioner No. 3's son Tilak Raj @ Bannal as per hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi on 10. 12. 2001. She died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage on 25. 09. 2006. As per prosecution case, the deceased ?was ? inflicted ?17 ?stab injuries by her husband on account of which she died and after inflicting stab injuries on her, the husband attempted to commit suicide by consuming some chemical. However, the husband survived the tragedy and he is presently stated to be in judicial custody. The FIR of the incident was registered shortly after the incident happened on 25. 09. 2006. More than one month has passed since the occurrence took place. The petitioners' learned counsel has argued that the petitioners have been falsely framed in the present case and he has taken me through the contents of the FIR at Page 17 of the paper book. The FIR was registered on the statement of deceased's mother. She in her statement had disclosed to the police that her deceased daughter was subjected to cruelty by her husband and she or her husband had stopped visiting their house about 2 years prior to the occurrence. Accusations made by her were basically against the husband of the deceased and at the end of the FIR, she simply made a general and sweeping accusation that the petitioners and the husband's nephew Anil had also assisted the husband while the deceased was subjected to cruelty from time to time. The learned APP for the state has submitted that during investigation statement of deceased's sister Laxmi and husband ?of ?laxmi ?were also recorded and they in their statements have stated to the police that they were also residing in the neighbourhood of the deceased and had seen one of the jethanis of the deceased present at the spot of occurrence. The learned APP for the state has submitted that during investigation statement of deceased's sister Laxmi and husband ?of ?laxmi ?were also recorded and they in their statements have stated to the police that they were also residing in the neighbourhood of the deceased and had seen one of the jethanis of the deceased present at the spot of occurrence. The learned APP for the state has read out the statements of Vikram and Laxmi recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. PC. They both have disclosed in their respective statements that when they reached the spot after the occurrence, they were not allowed to go upstairs by one of the jethanis of the deceased without naming that jethani. They have further stated in their statement that the jethani who did not permit them to go upstairs told them that it was their personal matter and they had no business to interfere in their personal matters. Except this neither the deceased's sister nor her Jija Vikram has said anything about the involvement of the petitioners in the incident. The learned APP for the state has further contended that the statement of deceased's father was also recorded and he has made general allegations of harassment and demand of dowry not only against the husband but also against the petitioners seeking their anticipatory bail. ( 4 ) UPON considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I feel that the accusations against the petitioners made by the ?relations ?of the deceased are vague and general in nature. The petitioners are females. It is contended on their behalf that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were married about 20 years prior to the marriage of the deceased with son of petitioner No. 3. It is submitted that petitioners No. 1 and 2 with their respective families were residing separate from the family of the deceased and her husband. Since, at this stage, there is no prima-facie evidence to direct arrest of the petitioners, I am of the view that they are entitled to be admitted to anticipatory bail till investigation is over so that personal liberty of the petitioners who are females be not jeopardized. The petitioners are permanent resident of Delhi. There is no apprehension of their absconding from the trial. The petitioners are permanent resident of Delhi. There is no apprehension of their absconding from the trial. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they be admitted to bail on their executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. This order of anticipatory bail shall be valid only till the completion of the investigation. After investigation is over, the petitioners should apply for their regular bail before the concerned trial court before whom charge-sheet may be filed. The petitioners are directed to join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating Officer. Any observation made in this order are only for the purpose of bail and shall not influence the trial against the accused persons.