JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and so also counsel for complainant and perused the material on record. 2. In Bail Application Nos. 9020/07, petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law & sisters-in-law, No. 871/08, petitioner is brother-in-law (Devar) and in Bail Application No. 1299/08 petitioner (Rajesh Agarwal) is husband of complainant. 3. It has been contended by counsel that marriage took place on 18th February, 2001 and the complainant left her matrimonial home on 15th February, 2007. A notice was served by husband of complainant u/s. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act dated 5th October, 2007. In response thereto, she served her reply to the notice on 15th October, 2007 and the present complaint was filed before learned counsel Magistrate on 22nd November, 2007 on which FIR was registered. 4. Counsel for petitioners further submits that allegation which has been levelled against accused-petitioners does not in any manner connect with the commission of offence and so far as article of stridhan is concerned, whatever was available with them the same has been returned through Investigating Officer to the complainant and receipt of which has also been placed on record for consideration. 5. Counsel for complainant submits that all the family members who are petitioners before this Court have jointly tortured her and alleged offences u/Ss. 498A, 406, 323 & 504 IPC at this stage cannot be ruled out and it is for the investigating officer to examine. 6. According to complainant's counsel, prior to notice served by her husband u/s. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, a complaint was made to Female Advisory & Security Centre. 7. Public Prosecutor submits that so far as Rajesh Agarwal, husband of complainant, is concerned, specific allegation has been leveled against him by complainant not only in her complaint but also in her statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and also in other statements which were recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 8. Taking note of nature of accusation and without expressing any opinion on merits, this court while dismissing the Bail Application No. 1299/08 of petitioner (Rajesh Agarwal), considers it appropriate to allow the Bail Application Nos. 9020/07 of accused-petitioners (Bhim Raj Agarwal, Smt. Prem Kanta, Smt. Sunita & Smt. Veena) & Bail Application No. 871 /q8 of accused-petitioner (Mukesh Agarwal). 9. Taking note of nature of accusation and without expressing any opinion on merits, this court while dismissing the Bail Application No. 1299/08 of petitioner (Rajesh Agarwal), considers it appropriate to allow the Bail Application Nos. 9020/07 of accused-petitioners (Bhim Raj Agarwal, Smt. Prem Kanta, Smt. Sunita & Smt. Veena) & Bail Application No. 871 /q8 of accused-petitioner (Mukesh Agarwal). 9. Accordingly, I allow the bail applications of the petitioners (supra) u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. and the SHO/IO of Mahila Police Station (North) Jaipur is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners (Bhim Raj Agarwal, Smt. Prem Kanta, Smt. Sunita, Smt. Veena & Mukesh Agarwal) in FIR No. 150/07, he shall enlarge them on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction on the following conditions : (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) They shall not directly 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 to any Police Officer; (iii) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. However, if accused-petitioner Rajesh Agarwal (Bail Application No. 1299/08) surrenders before learned trial Judge, his bail application be simultaneously considered in accordance with law.Bail applications disposed of accordingly. *******