IMPORTANT POINT
When the letters written by the deceased & by her mother go against the correctness of allegations of dowry demand and cruel treatment and there is no 'witness from the village of incident that death was unnatural and where cremation was not made a secret, bail application of husband, mother and father in law of deceased in case u/s. 498A. 304B, I.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

Virendra Saran, J. - These are three connected bail applications. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 3122(B) of 1993 Tamn Kumar Singh alias Bablu is the applicant. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 3422(B) of 1993 Vireshwar Singh is the applicant and in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3421 (B) of 1993 Smt. Vidyawati is the applicant. All the above named persons are in jail in connection with Crime No. 157 of 1992 of P.S. Lalganj, District Rae Bareli, for the offences U/S. 498N 304B/201, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Previous bail application of the applicants have been rejected by Hon'ble K.C. Bhargawa, J. In bail application of Tamn Kumar Singh alias Bablu Hon'ble K.C. Bhargawa, J. passed an order on 31.8.1993 releasing the case and directed it to be laid before the Hon'ble Senior Judge on the same day for nomination of another Judge. On 2.9.1993 the Hon'ble Senior Judge nominated me in this case. Similar orders had earlier been passed by Hon'ble K.C. Bhargawa, 1. In other two connected bail applications and the Hon'ble Senior Judge has nominated me to hear the bail application.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Sri I.B. Singh learned counsel for the complainant and learned State counsel at length.

The prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. is that Smt. Indu was married to applicant Tarnn Kumar Singh alias Bablu in the year 1980. Informant Brahmjeet Singh is the father of Smt. Indu who resides in Yadav Nagar Delhi. Applicant Vireshwar Singh and applicant Smt. Vidyawati are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of Smt. Indu. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in the marriage informant had spent about Rs. 90,000/- and had met other demands of the applicants. After some time when Smt. Indu came to her parental house she informed that there was a demand of a motor cycle and the informant gave Rs. 25,00')/- in lieu of motor cycle but even then Smt. Indu was treated with cruelty in her marital home. The F.I.R. goes on to state that 8-9 months prior to the incident when Smt. Indu had gone to her parental house, she has informed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were making a demand of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of doing some business and they had further told Smt. Indu that in case the money was not arranged consequence may be bad. Hence the informant did not send Smt. Indu to her' Sasural' but after some time Rajeshwar Singh, uncle-in-law of Smt. Indu came and took Smt. Indu on the assurance that she would be given proper treatment. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that on 2.9.1992 Manoj, younger brother of applicant Tarun Kumar Singh informed the informant on telephone that Smt. Indu was critically ill and requested the informant to reach Lalganj without loss of time. After two days i.e. on 4.6.1992 when the informant was about to proceed to Lalganj there was another telephonic call from Manoj and this time Manoj told that his 'Bhabhi' had expired. The informant thereafter proceeded to Lalganj by train and reached there in morning of 5.6. 1992 when the informant reached at the house of applicants at Lalganj and talked with them. He was told that Smt. Indu was ill for the last 15-20 days and was treated at Lalganj and Raebareli. But she developed high temperature and she died on 3.6.1992 at 12 noon. She was cremated on that very day. It was further mentioned in the F.I.R. that body was taken in a truck for cremation, although the Hindus take the body on their shoulders for cremation. According to the informant he got him seated in a bus. He went to his own village in district of Sultanpur where his wife was. From Sultanpur he returned to Delhi.

3. The F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 16.6.1992 at 3.20 p.m. at P.S. Lalganj district Raebareli.

4. The learned counsel for applicants has submitted that allegations made in the F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry and cruelty is false and after thought. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there are not even one witness o