Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the informant. This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 28.9.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, District-Moradabad in Sessions Trial No.273 of 2006, in Case Crime No.4152 of 2005 under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is husband of the deceased. It was a mis-match marriage and the marriage was solemnized by the parents of the deceased on the assumption that, appellant is heir of his alleged parents, it was also argued that when they became aware that it is not so they felt cheated by appellant. It has also submitted that p.w.2 had admitted that in his cross examination that they were not aware of the fact that Rakesh is not the son Sohan Lal. He has also admitted that deceased was well-educated and beautiful girl while husband is unemployed, black in colour and high school fail. It has been submitted that due to frustration having no finding resort from her parents the girl has committed suicide. Learned counsel for the informant argued that the death occurred within seven years of the marriage and just one day before the death the girl has informed her brother that other co-accused persons are demanding Rs. 1 lac cash. In the first information report which was lodged after the information given by co-accused that the girl has been throttled to death, the doctor has given categorical opinion that this injury is not caused by throttling or strangulating but by hanging. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application. Considering the statement of p.w.1 and also considering the doctor's categorical finding and also considering that deceased was married with appellant as parents of the deceased were under wrong impression that appellant is a wealthy person, appellant is entitled for bail. Let the appellant Rakesh be released on bail, during the pendency of appeal, on his furnishing two sureties and a personal bond of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the court concerned till disposal of appeal. Let the appellant Rakesh be released on bail, during the pendency of appeal, on his furnishing two sureties and a personal bond of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the court concerned till disposal of appeal. Realization of 50 per cent amount of fine shall remain stayed subject to deposit 50 per cent amount within one month after release from jail. As soon as bonds and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same be transmitted to this Court forthwith by concerned to be kept on the record of this appeal. _____________