( 1 ) THIS application under Section 438 Cr. P. C is preferred by the petitioners/applicants seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 460 of 2007 under Sections 304b/498a/34 of IPC. The petitioners are mother-in-law and dewar of the deceased. The deceased was married to Mr. Pradip on 2nd July, 2002. She died due to hanging on 6th June, 2007. ( 2 ) A perusal of the FIR would show that the FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased. In the FIR she made a report stating therein that her deceased daughter used to be harassed by her husband Pradip and her mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law used to call her 'hijri' (Eunuch ). She used to tell her that she would get a second marriage of her son Pradip done. Husband of deceased Pradip, also used to harass her. Even if deceased used to take her ill child to the doctor, her mother-in-law would taunt her that she had gone to waste time. The other allegation is that about two years before the incident, her mother-in-law asked her to bring Rs. 20,000/-, otherwise not to enter the house. ( 3 ) IN the FIR there are no specific allegations against Dewar except that at the end of the report, it is recorded that the deceased used to be harassed by mother-in-law and husband, dewar and nanad. She requested for investigation into the death of her daughter. ( 4 ) AFTER registration of FIR, the statement of bhabhi of the deceased and brother of the deceased were recorded wherein allegations were made that demand of Rs. 5 lacs was made from the deceased about 15 days before her death for the purpose of business by all the four accused persons. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners argued that neither the FIR nor the subsequent statements show that there was a dowry demand. In the FIR there is demand of Rs. 20,000/- about two years prior to the incident and in the statement of bhabhi and brother of the deceased, it is stated that Rs. 5 lac were demanded for the purpose of business and not as a dowry. On the other hand, counsel for the State submitted that the circumstances under which this demand of Rs. 20,000/- about two years prior to the incident and in the statement of bhabhi and brother of the deceased, it is stated that Rs. 5 lac were demanded for the purpose of business and not as a dowry. On the other hand, counsel for the State submitted that the circumstances under which this demand of Rs. 5 lac was not known to mother of deceased at the time of lodging FIR has been given by the bhabhi and brother of the deceased. Since mother of the deceased was a heart patient, she never wanted that her mother should come to know about her harassment and therefore she did not disclose all these facts to her mother but she disclosed this to her bhabhi with specific instructions not to disclose these facts to her mother. These facts, therefore, were missing from the statement made by the mother of the deceased. ( 6 ) LOOKING into the allegations made in the FIR and the statement of witnesses wherein no specific allegations have been made against dewar of the deceased except that he was roped in for the alleged demand of Rs. 5 lac for business, I consider it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to dewar of the deceased. However, I find prima facie there was sufficient evidence of harassment of deceased at the hands of mother-in-law. The arguments that there was no dowry demand soon after the suicide and alleged demand was for business, has no force since dowry demand can be made directly or indirectly. ( 7 ) IT is, therefore,directed that Umesh Kumar in case of arrest be released on bail on executing personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/sho concerned. However, the application of Smt. Pushpa Devi is dismissed.