JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. 2. Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that evidence that has been collected by the investigating agency clearly revealed that deceased Rina was used to be tortured and harassed by her in-laws. She was forced by them for bringing the ornaments, which in fact were given by them (in-laws) in the marriage, which was retained by her parents when she went to their house. Learned Counsel, in this connection referred to the statements of the various witnesses. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and has argued that the evidence is also to the effect that father-in-law and mother-in-law i.e. petitioners herein and husband of the deceased used to harass the deceased and they wanted to get rid off her. The death of deceased took place in mysterious circumstances. The police was not informed by the petitioners, nor was any information given by them to the parents about the death of the deceased and she was cremated even before their arrival. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners' son before the death of deceased. By all the evidence that was collected by the investigating agency, it comes to the conclusion that father-in-law and mother-in-law and husband of the deceased were harassing the deceased for not bringing the ornaments gifted by them on the marriage, which the father of the deceased retained and not returned back. It is contended that the fact about not giving information to the parents of the deceased by itself cannot be sufficient to bring the offence within the purview of section 304B, Indian Penal Code As otherwise also, the case of prosecution is that the deceased committed suicide. Charge-sheet has been filed under section 306 Indian Penal Code and the offence under sections 304-B and 498-A is not borne out from whatever evidence the prosecution has collected. For that sole reason, the petitioners cannot be retained behind the bars for a long period. Charge-sheet has been filed under section 306 Indian Penal Code and the offence under sections 304-B and 498-A is not borne out from whatever evidence the prosecution has collected. For that sole reason, the petitioners cannot be retained behind the bars for a long period. It is contended that the petitioner No. 1 father-in-law of deceased is physically handicapped with both his legs imputed and petitioner No. 2 mother-in-law being aged woman, is entitled to be granted the benefit of section 439, Criminal Procedure Code.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 5. In the result, this bail application under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code is allowed and it is directed that petitioners (1) Mohanlal S/o Lala and (2) Dakah Bai W/o Madanlal shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 33/2010, P.S. Lakheri. Distt. Bundi for offence under sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 and 201/34 of Indian Penal Code on each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15.000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till conclusion of the trial.Application Allowed. *******