RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Munni Devi and Chandra Deo Sharma with a prayer that they may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 28 of 2007 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act P. S. Rohaniya District Varanasi. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Nagendra Prasad Singh at P. S. Rohaniya on 10- 2-2007 at 3. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10-2-2007. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Ritu Singh was solemnized with the co-accused Dhreej Kumar, son of the applicant on 19-5-2004. Thereafter the in laws of the deceased demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- as a dowry to fullfil the same they subjected the deceased to cruelty. In the night of 9-2-2007 the deceased gave a telephonic message to the first informant that the applicant, the husband of the deceased and Devar of the deceased were demanding rupees and were extending threat that in case the demand is not fulfilled she would be killed by putting her on fire. In the morning of 10-2-2007, the first informant was making preparation to go to the house of the applicants. He was telephonically informed by some unknown person that the deceased has been burnt alive by her in laws. Thereafter, the first informant came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead-body then he went to the Police Station and lodged the F. I. R. According to the post-mortem examination Report the deceased had sustained burn injuries and the cause of death was shock as a result of ante-mortem extensive burn injuries. The applicants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. They applied for bail before the Court of Sessions Judge, Varanasi, who rejected the same on 8-5-2007. 3. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, and Sri A. K. Awasthi learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri V. C. Misra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Chandrahas Singh Gautam, learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. They were having no concern with the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. They were having no concern with the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The allegation in respect of the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty is absolutely false and baseless. It has not been supported by any other evidence. 5. It is further contended that the deceased had committed suicide, her husband Dheeraj Kumar Sharma and Devar Deepak Kumar Sharma have made efforts to save her life in the process of rescue they also sustained burn injuries. The parents of the deceased have not come forward to lodge the F. I. R. but the F. I. R. has been lodged by Sri Nagendra Pratap, maternal uncle of the deceased, who is a practising lawyer with a purpose of ulterior motive to encase the situation. The statement of the father of the deceased and brother of the deceased were recorded on 10-2- 2007 after recording the Statement of the first informant. From a bare perusal of the F. I. R. , it cannot be believed that the information was given to the first informant by an unknown person. In fact, the information of the said incident was given by the applicant side to the father of the deceased. On that information the entire family of the deceased was present at the time of the preparation of the inquest report. The deceased was an emotional lady, who was using to get upset on small issues. On the fateful day she has given a mobile phone to her child, the same was dropped by the child on which the co-accused Dheeraj reprimanded consequently, she become too much annoyed and committed suicide. There is no allegation that the deceased was put for harassment since before her death. The entire prosecution story is devoid of reliable evidence. After the death of the deceased the family member of the applicants are looking after the child aged about 2 years namely Gaurav who also lodged in Jail alongwith the applicants for want of any proper care outside the Jail. The co-accused Dheeraj and Pravin whose case is identical with the applicants, have been released on bail on 3-4- 2007 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6738 of 2007 on 1-5- 2007 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8994 of 2007. The co-accused Dheeraj and Pravin whose case is identical with the applicants, have been released on bail on 3-4- 2007 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6738 of 2007 on 1-5- 2007 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8994 of 2007. Therefore, the applicants are also entitled for bail. 6. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that he applicants are old persons, they are suffering from various diseases. The applicant Smt. Munni Devi is on continuous treatment at S. S. P. G. Hospital Varanasi. 7. It is further contended, that the protrudation of tongue is common factor in case of burn injuries. The applicants are peace loving person, they are not having any criminal antecedent. Therefore, they may be released on bail. 8. In reply of the above contention it has been submitted by the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that the applicants being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased are very responsible persons to look after the family affairs of their daughter-in-law. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 19-5-2004 and she has been murdered on 10-2- 2007. The deceased has been murdered within three years of her marriage. At that time she was having a child aged about two years. There is no reason for the deceased to commit the suicide on a very petty issue i. e. , dropping the mobile phone by the child. According to the Spot Inspection Note since the applicants are living in one house and no other property of the applicant has been taken and the dead-body of the deceased was found at place a i. e. , in Varandaha whereas she was put on fire after pouring kerosene oil at place x i. e. , inside the room but no other article of the room were taken. The applicants having a big house in which only one Kitchen if was available. There was demand of dowry and the deceased have given information to the first informant in the night of 9-2-2007 but prior the, arrival of the first informant the deceased has been murdered. 9. The applicants having a big house in which only one Kitchen if was available. There was demand of dowry and the deceased have given information to the first informant in the night of 9-2-2007 but prior the, arrival of the first informant the deceased has been murdered. 9. It is further contended that according to the post-mortem examination report also the tongue of the deceased was protruded and the smell of kerosene oil was present on her dead-body though the cause of death is mentioned as extensive burn injuries but prior her death the force was used on the neck of the deceased also. The nature of burn injuries which were epidermal extensive bum injuries shows that these injuries were sufficient for instantaneous death. The co-accused Pravin Sharma alias Rahul Sharma has been released on bail by another bench of this Court on 1-5-2007 considering the fact that he was younger brother in law of the deceased. On the same ground other co- accused Deepak Kumar Sharma has also been released on bail by another bench of this Court on 3-4-2007. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to get the benefit of parity. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the fact that the applicant being mother-in-law and father-in-law are very responsible persons and they were under social obligation to protect the interest of her daughter- in-law but they failed to do so, the death of the deceased was occurred within three years of her marriage. There was demand of dowry for which the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The applicants are not entitled for bail on the ground of parity because both the co-accused persons being younger brothers in law of the deceased, have been release on bail, Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Application rejected. .