JUDGMENT (1) This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 17 of 2011 dated 18.04.2011, registered at Police Station, ChintpurniJi under Sections 498-A, 306 and 34. The status report has been filed, record perused. (2) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner and deceased Poonam Devi got married about three years ago and a daughter was born from the wedlock. It has been alleged that petitioner and his parents used to male treat the deceased and did not provide her with day to day expenses. The further allegation is that on account of treatment given by the petitioner and his parents etc. deceased consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide on 17.4.2011. On the basis of above allegations a case has been registered implicating the petitioner, his parents, brother-in-law and sister. It has also been submitted that except petitioner the others have been released on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 18.4.2011 and since then he is in custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent, after completion of investigation challan has already been filed but charge has not been framed as yet. It has been submitted that no purpose will be served for detaining the petitioner for indefinite period. The trial of the case will take some time. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds and therefore, prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. The application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General and she has prayed for dismissal of the bail application. She has submitted that the petitioner and his family mal-treated deceased Poonam Devi and therefore, she ended her life. In normal course no married woman with a small baby would take extreme step to end her life. (3) I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that photographs of the deceased indicate some injuries on her person. In the postmortem report some injuries on the person of the deceased have been noticed but it has not been pointed out that there is any opinion regarding the duration of such injuries or whether the injuries are ante-mortem. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it is unfortunate that deceased ended her life by taking some poisonous substance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it is unfortunate that deceased ended her life by taking some poisonous substance. The petitioner did his best to save the deceased but without positive result. The parents of the deceased were informed immediately. He has relied on the statement of Sudesh Kumari under Section 161, Cr.P.C. She is sister of accused Santosh Kumari and she happened to be in the house of Santosh Kumari on the fateful day. (4) Sudesh Kumari in her statement has stated that she heard Poonam vomiting in the stairs. She enquired the cause but Poonam did not tell anything to her. The husband of Poonam also came down from the room. Poonam started losing consciousness. Manjit took him in the room and informed his inlaws that Poonam had consumed some poisonous substance and requested them to bring vehicle immediately. Manjit tried to take Poonam to hospital on his motorcycle but he could not take her hospital on the motorcycle. In the meantime Hoshiar Singh co-brother of Manjit reached Kinnu on his motorcycle and on seeing the condition of Manjit went to Bharwain and came with Summo vehicle. Poonam was taken to hospital, Manjit, Hoshiar Singh and Santosh accompanied her. After some time she saw Manjit coming weeping who told that at Bombay Picnic Spot his father in-law came with Van, took Poonam and dropped him. However, after 20- 25 minutes the dead body of Poonam was brought back. It appears from the police file that petitioner came to know that Poonam had taken some poisonous substance and her condition started deteriorated. He informed his in-laws immediately. The petitioner made an attempt to take Poonam to hospital on motorcycle but he could not take her to hospital as he could not control the motorcycle along with Poonam who was later on taken to hospital in Summo vehicle. In the meantime, Poonam died, petitioner was not allowed to accompany the dead body of Poonam. He returned to his home, but after some time the dead body of Poonam, was also brought back in her in-laws house. (5) The petitioner is in custody since 18.4.2011. The challan has been submitted on 23.6.2011, however charge has not yet been framed. In the normal course the trial of the case will take some time. In these circumstances, no purpose will be served to detain the petitioner for indefinite period. (5) The petitioner is in custody since 18.4.2011. The challan has been submitted on 23.6.2011, however charge has not yet been framed. In the normal course the trial of the case will take some time. In these circumstances, no purpose will be served to detain the petitioner for indefinite period. The apprehension of the prosecution that petitioner will terrorize the prosecution witnesses is not supported from the contemporaneous record. The other accused have already been released on bail. In case petitioner will make an attempt to terrorize the prosecution witnesses then law will take care of the situation. (6) Thus, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 17 of 2011 dated 18.04.2011, registered at Police Station ChintpurniJi under Sections 498-A, 306 and 34 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge with the condition that petitioner shall not terrorize the prosecution witnesses or make an attempt to win over the witnesses of the prosecution. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Petition allowed.