Learned counsel for the applicants argued that Smt. Marsarat Jamal was married about seven years back with Aarif and it has been alleged in the first information report that Aarif used to torture his wife and beat her for dowry. He further stated as per the first information report that the father-in-law, Sarwar, mother-in-law, Praveen and Dewar, Wasim also used to torture the deceased for dowry and it is alleged that some time prior to the incident, a demand of rupees ten lacs was made for the purchase of a house. It has been mentioned in the first information report that due to the non-fulfilment of this demand, Smt Marsarat Jamal was done to death on 1.5.2018. He further argued that the applicant no. 1 is the father-in-law aged about 70 years and applicant no. 2 is the brother-inlaw/Dewar living separately regarding which an averment has been made in paragraph 15 which is supported by the copy of the ration card annexed therein. He further argues that there was never any demand of dowry from the side of applicants from the deceased.The demand of dowry has come in light for the first time when the present first information report was lodged. He next argues that the demand of rupees ten lacs for purchasing of a house as alleged in the first information report itself was being demanded by the husband. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the order of co-accused Smt. Praveen, mother-in-law who has been granted bail vide order dated 7.3.2019 passed by another Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9818 of 2019. Lastly, he argued that in the present case, the trial Judge has framed charge upon the applicants under Section 498A, 302 read with 34 IPC and
