SURENDER SINGH, J. ( 1 ) SINCE both the bail applications have a common matrix and arisen from same offence, hence they are being decided together by a common order. ( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of refusal of bail dated 7. 8. 2008 by the learned district and Sessions Judge, Agra, applicants have preferred aforesaid bail applications before this Court for consideration of their prayer for bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2008 under Sections 498a, 304b, 506, I. P. C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station barhan, District Agra. ( 3 ) THE background facts in nutshell are as follows: the F. I. R. of the aforesaid case was lodged by Shailendra Pratap Singh (brother of the deceased) on 9,6. 2008 at Police Station, Barhan District Agra in respect of the incident which is alleged to have occurred on the same day at about 11. 00 a. m. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Rubi was solemnized with the applicants son, namely, Sonu in year 2004 and after the lapse of one year of marriage, the in-laws of the deceased started demanding a motorcycle and when the said demand could not be fulfilled, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty. Ultimately on 9. 6. 2008 at about 11. 00 a. m. , the deceased Smt. Rubi was set on fire and she breathed her last due to the burn injuries. On an information received by the brother of the deceased allegedly sent by some person from the village of the applicants regarding the incident, the complainant along with some co-villagers reached to the nuptial place of the deceased and found the dead body lying in her nuptial house. Thereafter on the same day, F. I. R. was registered under aforesaid sections against the applicants and Sonu, the husband of the deceased. ( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. ( 5 ) LEARNED A. G. A. was granted time by this Court on two occasions to file counter affidavit, but despite the time having been granted, A. G. A. has filed ho counter affidavit. ( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. ( 5 ) LEARNED A. G. A. was granted time by this Court on two occasions to file counter affidavit, but despite the time having been granted, A. G. A. has filed ho counter affidavit. ( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that they are unfortunate father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Rubi and they have got no concern with the alleged incident. He has further submitted that there was ho demand of dowry and the allegation in this respect is absolutely false and concocted and the applicants are made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. The allegations contained in the F. I. R. are of general nature and as usual demand of motorcycle has been alleged and from any stretch of imagination, the applicants could not have been the beneficiary of the dowry/motorcycle and they were residing separate from the deceased at the relevant time. He has further submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady (in this regard the applicant Netra Pal has moved an application dated 3. 7. 2006 before the higher police authorities, copy of which has been filed as annexure No. 4 to the affidavit) and has committed suicide by putting herself on fire on account of some altercation which took place between her and her husband and the provisions of Section 304b, I. P. C. are not attracted as there is hardly any material showing the existence of an approximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. He has further pointed out that co-villagers have filed their affidavits before the higher police authorities in support of the applicants stating therein that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the said crime and in fact reality behind the incident has been concealed by the complainant. The photocopies of the affidavits have also been annexed along with this application. He has also submitted that on account of long incarceration of the applicants since 25. 6. The photocopies of the affidavits have also been annexed along with this application. He has also submitted that on account of long incarceration of the applicants since 25. 6. 2008 and the trial likely to consume sometime, moreover, they have got no criminal history to their credit and there is neither any chance of their tampering with the prosecution witnesses nor any likelihood of their fleeing away from the judicial process and, therefore, they are entitled for bail at this stage. ( 7 ) THE bail is, however, opposed by the learned A. G. A. ( 8 ) THE points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie, satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it a fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail. ( 10 ) WITHOUT expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants netra Pal and Smt. Sunita Devi involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond of rs. 25,000 and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C. J. M. /court concerned and executing an undertaking in the following terms: (1) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating the witnesses. (2) They shall cooperate with the investigation and speedy trial. (3) They shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. Application allowed. .