R. L. Gupta, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) for cancellation of the bail granted to the three respondents by the learned ASJ, Delhi vide order dated 2.7.92.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the statements of various witnesses examined by the police as also the order passed by the learned ASJ. The deceased Smt. Mamta Puri was married to third respondent Kamal Kumar Puri on 14.4.1992. She died in West City Nursing Home at about 7.30 p. m. on 21.4.1992 i.e. just after a week of her marriage, as a result of a fall from the top storey of the matrimonial home. Inquest proceedings were initiated by the SDM, Patel Nagar and the case was registered on 27.4.1992 i.e. after about six days of her death. I have been taken through the statements of the various witnesses. The statement of the brother Harish Bhandari, mother, Smt. Prem Bhandari and father Sh. Ramesh Bhandari were recorded by SDM on 22.4.1992. In those statements, they did not attribute any harassment on account of insufficiency of dowry or any further demand. For the first time it was on 23.4.1992, her Bhabhi Sweta Bhandari said that when the deceased had come on Phera caremoney on 15.4.92 she mentioned that they had not done well in marrying her in a family which was fond of money only. She pacified her and sent her back. Her statement was recorded on 28.4.1992 by the I.O. wherein she gave further elaboration to her earlier statement by saying that the respondents had taunted her for not bringing sufficient dowry and rather forced her to bring more money from her parents. Another relation Krishna Ghai was examined on 28.4.1992 by the I.O wherein she said that on 17.4.1992 the deceased had told her about taunts being given to her for not bringing dowry. In his complaint to SHO on 25.4.1992, Ramesh Bhandari, said that the deceased had told his daughter-in-law Sweta Bhandari on 15.4.92 that the respondents had demanded Rs. 1 lac which should be brought by her from her father.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement recorded during inquest in which there are apparently no allegations regarding harassment or demand of dowry should not be accepted at this stage in preference to later statements wherein such allegations are made by the relations of the deceased. I have carefully applied my mind to the contentions. It is a case in which apparently earlier statements, although not strictly under Section 161 of the Code do not inculpate the respondent whereas the later statements made after 6-7 days to inculpate them. Even if the statements made at the time of inquest are strictly not in investigation, it is not possible also to ignore them since they are quite detailed and in any case admittedly are in the nature of previous statements of the closest relations of the deceased. The deceased died after a fall from the top floor of the house. I am of the view that by taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration it was not such a case wherein the discretion vesting in the learned ASJ for grant of bail, could not have been exercised. I, therefore, find no infirmity in order of the learned ASJ and I am not persuaded to cancel the bail granted to the respondents.

4. However, before parting with this matter, 1 would like to say that any observations made either by me or by the learned ASJ in his order would have no bearing on the final disposal of the case after the completion of the trial while learned trial Court comes to its own conclusions. Petition is dismissed.