1. Mr. Bikru Ram, an octogenarian, and Mrs. Taro Devi, a Septuagenarian, have approached this Court for their release on bail in F.I.R No. 58/2007, registered at Police Station Gharota under Sections 302/498-A/109 R.P.C, alleging their false implication as alleged abettors of the murder of Sharda Devi, their daughter-in-law, by their son Kalu Ram. 2. Projecting their innocence, besides old age and sickness, their learned counsel seeks their bail urging additionally that there is no evidence which may indicate the involvement of the petitioners for the commission of offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 302 of Ranbir Penal Code. 3. State opposes their release saying that in view of the dying declaration of Sharda Devi, to the effect that Kalu Ram had poured petrol on her and set her ablaze, at the instance of the petitioners, makes them guilty of offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 302 RPC. 4. Records of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, where the challan had been stated to have been filed against the petitioners and others, were sent for. 5. I have perused the records received from the trial Court. Material relied upon by the prosecution in its report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the petitioners had been living separately from their son Kalu Ram and daughter-in-law Sharda. Kalu Ram had gone to visit the old couple on 10th of October, 2007 and after coming there from had quarreled with the deceased. On the next day too, he is stated to have gone to the house of the petitioners and after coming there from had quarreled with his wife and at about 9.30 and had poured petrol over Shardas body and put her on fire. 6. What transpired between the petitioners and their son on these two occasions, is not forthcoming from the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. 7. Section 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code gets attracted only if there was material on records to indicate that any offence had been abetted and in consequence of such abetment, the offence had infact taken place. 8. 7. Section 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code gets attracted only if there was material on records to indicate that any offence had been abetted and in consequence of such abetment, the offence had infact taken place. 8. Barring the allegation that after coming from the house of the petitioners, their son Kalu had quarreled with the deceased and later set her on fire after pouring petrol over her body, there is no other allegation against the petitioners except that the petitioners too, had been treating the deceased with cruelty. 9. Keeping old age of the petitioners in view and the facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the records, relied upon by the prosecution, in the police challan, I am of the view that petitioners have succeeded in making out a case for their release on bail pending their trial. 10. Both the petitioners are, accordingly, admitted to bail. They shall be released from custody on their furnishing personal recognizance and recognizances of their sureties, in the amount of Rs.50, 000/- each, to the satisfaction of Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, containing the stipulation that they will regularly attend the trial and shall not either directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. They shall not leave Jammu District except with the permission of the Court. 11. Nothing said in this Order shall be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case which shall be gone into by the Learned Trial Court in accordance with law.