ORDER : 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant praying for grant of bail after suspending the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, who has faced trial in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2011 and by judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2016 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2016 passed by Sri Brajendra Nath Pandey, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offences punishable under section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that under order dated 07.02.2017, this case was directed to be listed along with record of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 02 of 2017 in which L.C.R was received. 3. Referring to evidence of P.W.6-informant-Ramanand Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this witness has stated that his daughter Minu Kumari was married with the appellant on 19.02.2009, thereafter his daughter went to her sasural at Dumka and started living there. But after 23 months, the appellant and his family members demanded dowry. Further, this witness has stated that in May, 2009, his daughter came to his house, she again told him about the torturing of accused persons. This witness has further stated that on 21.05.2010, his daughter came his house and again complained of torturing. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that regarding the complain of torturing by the deceased the appellant came to know in the year, 2009 but the informant has not made any complain either before the Court or before the police officer. It has also been submitted that I.O has not been examined in this case. Relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Baijnath & Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101 : “33. It has also been submitted that I.O has not been examined in this case. Relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Baijnath & Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101 : “33. Tested on the judicially adumbrated parameters as above, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, cruelty or harassment to the deceased for or in connection with any demand for dowry as contemplated in either of the two provisions of the Code under which the accused persons had been charged” has submitted that in order to prove the charge under section 304(B) I.P.C following ingredients must be necessary that the death of a woman occurred within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 4. Referring to evidence of P.W.6-informant-Ramanand Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the father of the deceased came to know about the complain of the deceased regarding torturing in the year, 2009 but the informant has not brought this this fact to the notice of either before the Court or before the police officer, so prosecution has failed to prove the first ingredient. Further, it has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was remanded on 28.10.2010 and he was released on bail on 17.05.2013 (remained in custody for about 1 years, 6 months and 20 days). Further, it is submitted that there was improvement in the narration of the informant when he deposed in the Court as there was no incident alleged to have been committed in the year, 2010 in the F.I.R, whereas the informant had subsequently deposed after a delay of 34 years that even in 2010 the deceased had complained to him about torture and cruelty by the accused persons meted out to her. Further, it has been submitted that place of occurrence has not been established, as the inquest report has not been properly considered. Further, it has been submitted that the appeal of the year, 200304 is being heard and there is no likelihood to be heard the instant appeal near future. 5. Further, it has been submitted that place of occurrence has not been established, as the inquest report has not been properly considered. Further, it has been submitted that the appeal of the year, 200304 is being heard and there is no likelihood to be heard the instant appeal near future. 5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there was continuous torture to the deceased till her natural death. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, above named appellant is directed to be released on bail during pendency of this instant appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/( Rupees ten thousands), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Brajendra Nath Pandey, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in connection with Sessions Trial No.58 of 2011. 7. I.A. No.1105 of 2017 stands allowed and disposed of. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court below through FAX. I.A. allowed Or Appeal allowed.