JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in this case registered under Section 304(B), 328, 120-B, 34 of the I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Dhanbad. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant namely Lukman Ansari has submitted a written report on 24.9.2011 stating therein that his sister Noorjahan Khatoon was married in the year 2001 according to the Muslim customs with Asrat Hussain Ansari, who died five years before and his sister is having four children out of the said wedlock and was residing with her in-laws. On 24.9.2011 at about 11:30, Pinku, who is the brother in law of his sister, informed him over mobile phone that his sister is not well and on getting this information, at about 1:30 P.M. reached in the Clilnic of Dr. Shashi Bhushan, as informed by the in laws, but he did not find his sister there, and when he asked again, on mobile, the said Pinku, informed him that his sister has been admitted to Pragati Nursing Home at Seraidhella at Dhanbad. When the informant reached there, he found his sister is dead and forth was at her mouth. It is further alleged by the informant that the in-laws of his sister always used to torture her and even when her husband was alive, he also used to demand certain amount from her, and thereafter, her brother in laws (Bhaisur and Dever) and her sisters in law (Nanad and Gotni) and her mother in law all used to torture her and also used to demand money from her. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except the suspicion, there is nothing against the petitioners that they have committed the offence. It is further contended that though the allegation made in the F.I.R. is that the petitioners used to torture the victim lady, but neither the victim lady, nor her any family members lodged any case regarding the said torture earlier to the present case. 5. The daughter and the son of the victim lady have stated before the police that her mother took poison herself which was kept in the box. 6. 5. The daughter and the son of the victim lady have stated before the police that her mother took poison herself which was kept in the box. 6. Counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner No.1 is father in law of the victim lady and is aged about 79 years and the the petitioner no.2 is mother in law who is also aged about 63 years and the petitioner No.3 is the sister in law (Gotni) of the victim. It is further contended that it has come in the investigation that the police has found the case as suicide. Counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit in this case and stated that there is sufficient materials against the petitioner regarding their involvement in the case and also stated that the petitioners gave poison to the victim lady for non payment of the demand of dowry. 7. I find that though the counsel for the State has stated about the torture and giving of the poison by the petitioners to the victim lady, but the counsel for the State has not pointed out the statement of any of the witnesses , who has stated that the petitioners have given the poison to the victim lady. On the other hand, both the children of the victim lady have stated that her mother has taken poison herself. Even the children have not stated anything regarding any assault made by the present petitioners. 8. Considering all these facts and considering the aforesaid materials which has come in the investigation, I direct all the petitioners to surrender before the trial court within a period of one month from the date of this order (07.05.2012). If the petitioners surrender before the trial court within the said period, the trial court is directed to release the petitioner namely Md. If the petitioners surrender before the trial court within the said period, the trial court is directed to release the petitioner namely Md. Harisuddin Ansari @ Harisuddin Mian @ Harisuddin Ansari, Naima Bibi and Sanjeeda Khatoon @ Sanjeeda Bibi on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the court below /Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Dhanbad, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.317 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No.3157 of 2011, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors will be local resident having immovable property within the jurisdiction of the district concerned and subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and subject to the further conditions that all the petitioners are further directed that whenever the trial court requires the presence of the petitioners, they will appear before the court below/trial court, otherwise, the court below/ trial court is at liberty to cancel their bail so granted by this Court. Order accordingly.