JUDGMENT : Case diary is perused. Heard the arguments of both the parties. 2. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 304­B, 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered as Crime No.76/2014 at Police Station Rithorakala, District Morena. 3. Considering the fact that the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/accused being sister­in­law of the deceased has been falsely implicated in this case. Marriage of the deceased­ Rachna was solemnized with Banwarilal on 14.05.2011. She committed suicide by burning himself. Date of death of the deceased is 27.05.2014. When the inquest report of the deceased was prepared by the police, the father of the deceased and other family members were present. However, they did not make any complaint against the applicant regarding demand of dowry. After 10 days i.e. on 07.06.2014, statements of the deceased's father and other family members were recorded, wherein omnibus allegations have been made against the applicant/accused for demand of article motorcycle as dowry. Learned counsel further submits that father of the deceased Munnalal, brother­Ramveer, maternal uncle­Balram, sister­in­law Suman produced their affidavits before the trial court to this effect that the applicant did not torture or harass the deceased for demand of motorcycle. The applicant is aged 26 years. Therefore, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 5. On perusal of the case diary, it is evident that marriage of the deceased was solemnized three and half years before the death of the deceased. When the inquest report was prepared by the police, father of the deceased and other family members were present. However, they did not make any complaint to the police regarding harassment of the deceased by the applicant for demand of motorcycle. 6. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to allow this application u/S. 438 of Cr.P.C. in the following terms. 7. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/­(Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties, each of Rs.50,000/­, to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority. 6. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to allow this application u/S. 438 of Cr.P.C. in the following terms. 7. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/­(Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties, each of Rs.50,000/­, to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :­ 1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her; 2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused; 5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. C.c. as per rules.