ORDER : 1. The present Misc bail applications under section 439 Cr.P.C. are preferred by the Accused/petitioners in the matter of FIR No.24/2017 registered at Police Station Tatgarh, District Ajmer, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 304-B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are false and fabricated. There are only four members in family Khuman Singh (husband of deceased), Sukhdev (brother-in-law (Jeth)), Naina Devi @ Sumitra (sister-in-law (Jethani)), Smt. Meera Devi (mother-in-law), both the male members i.e. Khuman Singh and Sukhdev are Army personnel, Khuman Singh is deployed at Lucknow in training and Sukhdev is deployed on border, both the male members use to visit their family once in a year and only three ladies were residing at their native place Mathuwara, P.S. Tatgarh, District Ajmer. He submits that prior to this incident on 08.12.2016 deceased attempted to commit suicide, therefore her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 09.12.2016 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 1 Beawar, District Ajmer wherein she stated that she got married with petitioner Khuman Singh in the year 2013, it was specifically asked to her by the Magistrate that whether there was any demand of dowry by the husband or any member of her in-laws? for which she specifically denied. It was further asked that in connection to demand of dowry whether there was any harassment, for which she again specifically denied and stated that she consumed a tablet which is used to put in wheat and when again it was asked that why did you eat the tablet, she replied that she doesn’t want to live. It was also asked whether her husband quarrels with her, she specifically denied that her husband doesn’t quarrel with her. It was also asked that whether there was any pressure to eat tablet, for which she denied. Lastly, she stated that if she is being saved, she is in fear that after this incident her husband may leave her, which shows that deceased was in tendency of commit suicide and after attempting to commit suicide she was in fear that due to this act her husband may leave her. 3. Lastly, she stated that if she is being saved, she is in fear that after this incident her husband may leave her, which shows that deceased was in tendency of commit suicide and after attempting to commit suicide she was in fear that due to this act her husband may leave her. 3. He submits that the alleged incident took place on 04.06.2017 and prior to it on 28.05.2017 deceased Pooja visited to her Aunt-in-law where she took dinner and stayed there in night with her Aunt-in-law(Dolly) where she didn’t whisper a single word against the petitioners. The independent witnesses Jaswant Singh, Hem Singh, Daulat Singh and Trilok Singh who are neighbors of the petitioners clearly stated that petitioners were implicated falsely, they never harassed the deceased. He submits that deceased in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 09.12.2016 clearly denied before the Magistrate that there was no demand of dowry or harassment. Thereafter, all of sudden the allegation regarding demand of dowry was levelled falsely after lapse of four years of marriage which is unbelievable. 4. He submits that in this type of cases generally parents of deceased married lady levels false allegations against the whole family members of her in-laws just to get them punished, they exaggerates their statements, this observation was made by three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 . 5. He submits that petitioner Khuman Singh who is husband of deceased is disciplined Army personnel and is in custody since 06.06.2017 and petitioners Naina Devi @ Sumitra, Smt. Meera Devi are in custody since 21.06.2017, investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed. 6. He submits that soon after incident inquest report was prepared, wherein there is not a single injury is there on the body of deceased-Pooja except the injuries of asphyxia and the door of the room was closed from inside at the time of cite plan which was broke down. 6. He submits that soon after incident inquest report was prepared, wherein there is not a single injury is there on the body of deceased-Pooja except the injuries of asphyxia and the door of the room was closed from inside at the time of cite plan which was broke down. He further submits that complainant himself admitted in his Police statement that he received a phone call from deceased, wherein she (deceased) told him that she is living separately from petitioners Naina Devi @ Sumitra, Smt. Meera Devi and cooks her meal separately, therefore by the dowry items petitioners Naina Devi @ Sumitra, Smt. Meera Devi couldn’t get any benefit and petitioner Khuman Singh who is Army personnel and is deployed at Lucknow is also no concern with the dowry items, therefore petitioners may be released on bail. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that deceased made a complaint prior to this incident before SHO, Police Station Tatgarh regarding demand of dowry and cruelty against the petitioners wherein Police submitted Istgasa under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. After investigation Police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 406, 498-A and 304-B of IPC, therefore bail applications may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. 9. In the matter of Rajeev Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2014 SC 227 , there was a dying declaration of deceased in following terms :- “I was married to Dr. Rajiv Singla 2 years back. My husband used to get upset on petty issues. My in-laws lived separately. They are living after the 6 months of my marriage. My daughter is of 2 months. Today about 7.30 p.m., in evening I was fed up with activities of my husband and put on kerosene oil and burn myself. Earlier my husband used to taunt me for dowry. Action should be taken against my husband.” 10. Considering the aforesaid dying declaration, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that :- “It will be clear from the contents of the dying declaration (Ext. PN) that the deceased was fed up with the activities of her husband and she poured kerosene oil on herself and burnt herself. Action should be taken against my husband.” 10. Considering the aforesaid dying declaration, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that :- “It will be clear from the contents of the dying declaration (Ext. PN) that the deceased was fed up with the activities of her husband and she poured kerosene oil on herself and burnt herself. What those activities of the appellant were which prompted her to commit suicide have not been clearly stated, but she has stated that her husband used to get upset on petty issues and earlier her husband used to taunt her for dowry.” 11. And it was also observed from the aforesaid dying declaration that :- “One of the essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death under Section 304B, IPC is that the accused must have subjected a woman to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death and this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. As this ingredient of Section 304B, IPC, has not been established by the prosecution, the trial court and the High Court were not correct in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of dowry death under Section 304B, IPC.” 12. Here, in the case in hand though there is no dying declaration regarding this incident but on 08.12.2016 deceased Pooja attempted to commit suicide. In that matter on 09.12.2016 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C of deceased was recorded by learned Magistrate wherein she clearly denied regarding demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment. The act of deceased Pooja of dated 08.12.2016 shows that she was having tendency to commit suicide. 13. In the matter of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court made remarks in such type of cases regarding psychology of parents of deceased woman in following words :- “In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it.” 14. Here, in the case in hand since deceased herself denied for demand of dowry or act of cruelty of petitioners on 09.12.2016 before the Magistrate. Thereafter, in ambiguous terms she levelled allegations regarding demand of money and made complaint regarding small family disputes, therefore without expressing any final opinion on the merit and de-merit of the case and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow these bail applications. 15. Consequently, the bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed. 16. Therefore, it is ordered that the accused-petitioners No. (1) Naina Devi @ Sumitra W/o Shri Sukhdev Singh (2) Smt. Meera Devi W/o Shri Pancham Singh (3) Khuman Singh S/o Shri Pancham Singh in FIR No. 24/2017 registered at Police Station Tatgarh, District Ajmer, shall be released on bail; provided they furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each and two surety bonds of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.