JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. 2. By means of this application, applicants, namely, Kanta Yadav and Rajkumari Devi, who are involved in Case Crime No. 681 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a first information report of the complainant who is father of the deceased was registered on 25.09.2024, wherein he has made allegation of harassment and torture of his daughter in her matrimonial home on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The accused persons used to taunt her for bringing less dowry. A daughter was also born to her. On 17.09.2024 at about 07:00 o'clock, he received an information from some villagers that his daughter is missing. On the said information, he along with other family members went to her matrimonial home and also informed the police about the matter. After a lot of search, dead body of his daughter was found on 18.09.2024 at about 08:00 o'clock lying in a drain flowing near house of her matrimonial home, therefore, he not only suspects but is completely sure that her daughter's in-laws have murdered her and thrown her body in the drain. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants who are father-in-law and mother- in-law of the deceased have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the deceased herself had gone to throw cow dung in the drain, slipped and fell into it. She also got injured because ground of drain was hard and rocky. She died on account of drowning. Referring the statement of Dr. Kaushal Kumar Pandey and Dr. Sayyed Soyeb Ali, it is also argued that said injuries can occur due to falling on rocky ground. It is next submitted that before the incident, there was no quarrel between the deceased and her in-laws. She died on account of drowning. Referring the statement of Dr. Kaushal Kumar Pandey and Dr. Sayyed Soyeb Ali, it is also argued that said injuries can occur due to falling on rocky ground. It is next submitted that before the incident, there was no quarrel between the deceased and her in-laws. The applicants have been falsely implicated on the basis of a audio recording of the applicant, which has been made part of Case Diary No. 6 dated 07.11.2024 whereas complete contents of said audio recording has not been mentioned by the investigating offcer in the case diary, therefore, applicants who are languishing in jail since 13.11.2024 may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the said submissions by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that even after missing of the deceased, no information was given by the applicants or any other family members to parents' of deceased. Even no report of her missing was lodged. First time, information about the said incident was given by the complainant to the police and thereafter dead body of deceased was recovered on 18.09.2024 from the drain. So far as audio recording in question is concerned, it is submitted that the gist of the conversation between the applicant no.1 and brother of the deceased has been mentioned in the case diary stating inter-alia that the said call was made by the applicant no. 1 to Ajay Yadav (brother of the deceased) narrating the entire incident. Hearing the said audio, complainant confirmed that it is the voice of Kanta Yadav, in which there is a conversation of taking money for work and transferring the land to granddaughter and maternal grand mother. Hence, in the light of provisions under Section 117 and 118 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, bail application of the applicants is liable to be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the deceased died her unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. The dead body of the victim was not found in her matrimonial home but the same was found in a drain. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the deceased died her unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. The dead body of the victim was not found in her matrimonial home but the same was found in a drain. It is also not in dispute that about the missing of the deceased, neither any information was given to her family members nor any effort was made by the accused persons to search the deceased. The entire efforts were started after the information being given by the complainant to the police on 17.09.2024. As per post-mortem report of the deceased, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of drowning, which corroborates the place of recovery of deceased. The applicants being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased are not only duty bound to protect their daughter-in-law but also under heavy onus to give plausible explanation about unnatural death of their daughter-in-law. In the light of conduct of the accused persons as noted above, the defence set up by the accused persons does not inspire confidence. Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court is not recording any finding on the merit of the case, so that it may not affect the trial of the applicants. However, this Court is of the view that the alleged offence is heinous in nature. 7. Considering the nature of offence, severity of punishment and provisions of Section 117 and 118 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.