V. B. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) BY this common order the above mention petitions for bail are being disposed of. ( 2 ) THE petitioner Rajeev Sharma is brother-in-law (jeth), Dori Lal Sharma is father-in-law, Smt. Sia Devi is mother-in-law, Ms. Neetu is sister-in-law (Nanand) and Smt. Anita Devi is sister-in-law (jethani) of deceased Ms. Reena. ( 3 ) PRESENT case was registered on the complaint of Rajpal Sharma, who is the father of the deceased Ms. Reena. According to the complainant, his daughter Ms. Reena was married to Raj kumar S/o Dori Lal Sharma on 26th April, 2001. After three months of marriage, his son-in-law and daughter came to his house and asked through his daughter, that he needs Rs. 10,000/ -. However, the complainant managed to give him Rs. 5,000/- only. Thereafter, his son-in-law again and again demanded for the money. His daughter always told him over telephone that her in-laws, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law always beat her and after listening to this, whenever he had money he used to give to his son-in-law. After 1-1/2 months before, his daughter and son-in-law came along with their children to his house and his son-in-law demanded money or else he said that he will leave his daughter and children there. On his refusal he left his daughter and children there. About 15-20 days before, his son-in-law again came and demanded money from his son and his son managed to give him rs. 15,000/- and then he took back his daughter and children. ( 4 ) ON 27th July, 2007, in the morning at about 8 a. m. he received a call of Kali Charan on mobile phone regarding the death of his daughter. It seems that her in laws had killed her as from the very beginning they have been demanding money through her. On the basis of this complaint, present case under section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC has been registered against the present petitioners. ( 5 ) IT has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner Rajeev Sharma and Dori Lal Sharma, were not in town at the time of incident and they have placed on record documents to this effect. There was separate kitchen of the deceased and there is no document on record to show that any dowry was ever demanded. There was separate kitchen of the deceased and there is no document on record to show that any dowry was ever demanded. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, it has been argued by Learned PP that serious allegations have been made by the complainant against the petitioners and according to postmortem report deceased had sustained antimortem injuries on her body and there is evidence of scuffle on the dead body prior to the death and as such petitioners should not be enlarged on anticipatory bail. ( 7 ) AS per statement of the complainant, Ms. Reena has died within seven years of her marriage and there was demand of dowry made by her husband and all the petitioners used to beat the deceased, as such, prima-facie, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. ( 8 ) REGARDING plea of petitioners Rajeev Sharma and Dori Lal Sharma that they were not in town at the time of alleged incident, it may be pointed out that it is not necessary that for an offence u/s 498 A and 304 B of Indian Penal code, the accused should have been physically present at the spot at the time of the death of the victim. ( 9 ) MS. Reena has died within seven years of her marriage and the doctor has opined the cause of death as Asphyxia due to hanging and there is evidence of scuffle on the dead body prior to the death. This prima-facie, goes on to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and as such no ground is made out for enlarging any of the petitioners on anticipatory bail, except Ms. Neetu who is aged about 15 years only. ( 10 ) INTERIM Anticipatory bail granted to Ms. Neetu is made absolute on the same terms and conditions as per order dated 7th September, 2007, while applications filed on behalf of petitioner Rajeev Sharma, Dori Lal, Sia Devi and smt. Anita Devi are dismissed. ( 11 ) COPY of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for both the parties.