JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated being father-in-law with general allegations against all; that the applicant may not be beneficiary of four wheeler allegedly demanded as dowry; that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with the husband of the deceased; that the applicant was living in separate room; that the deceased had developed illicit relationship with her brother-in-law (Jeeja) for which a day before the incident her father had admonished her and feeling depressed she appears to have committed suicide by setting herself ablazed; that villagers have given affidavits to DIG stating real facts that the applicant is not responsible for death of his daughter-in-law; that the applicant is an old person; that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 28.12014 and may kindly be released on bail. 3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the deceased was being treated with cruelty in connection with non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and her death has taken place due to burn injuries otherwise than under normal circumstances within three years of marriage and there is presumption of dowry death against the applicant under section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act; that the affidavits are villagers to DIG are false and appears to have been obtained in order to misguide; that such affidavits are not admissible in evidence as has been laid down by the Court in 1995 A.Cr.R. 138 in the case of Islam Vs. State of U.P. 4. Upon hearing the counsel and perusal of record as well as considering the complicity of offence, severity of punishment and totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 5. Let the applicant Ranveer Singh be released on bail in S.T. No. 101 of 2015 (State Vs. 5. Let the applicant Ranveer Singh be released on bail in S.T. No. 101 of 2015 (State Vs. Rajkumar and others) in Case Crime No. 638 of 2014, under sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Amroha Dehat, District Amroha on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions: - (i) The applicant will cooperate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 3 13 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C. (ii) The applicant will not tamper the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. 6. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.