Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.)-This application has been filed by one Kallan Yadav with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 551 of 2006 under Sections 498A, 304B and 201, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S Mubarakpur district Azamgarh.
(2.)THE facts of the case in brief are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Dev Narain Yadav on 10.12.2005 at about 3.20 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 8.12.2005. THE applicant and three other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Savita Yadav was solemnized with the applicant five years prior to the alleged incident. It is alleged that the in-laws of the deceased were demanding one chain of gold, Rs. 20,000 and one she-buffalo and on non-fulfilment of dowry the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. On 8.12.2005 the deceased was murdered by her in-laws and cremation of his dead body was done. On 10.12.2005 the first informant got the information, he came to the village then he saw that her house was locked. It was disclosed by the villagers that the deceased has been murdered and cremation of the dead body has been done.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.G.A.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized about nine years prior to the incident but it has been wrongly mentioned that the marriage was solemnized about 5 years of the alleged incident and with the wedlock of the applicant and deceased a male child Amit was born who is aged about 6 years. There was no demand of dowry and the deceased was not subjected to the cruelty. It was the second marriage of the deceased after divorce she was married with the applicant. She was firstly married with Munnar Yadav. There is allegation of demand of dowry and to fulfill the same the deceased was subjected to cruelty, is absolutely false and frivolous because there was no demand of dowry and the deceased was never subjected to cruelty and there is documentary evidence in respect of this allegation. The deceased had died due to her natural death because she was suffering from fever. She was checked up by the doctor in district Hospital Azamgarh as an outdoor patient prior her death, she was under the treatment. In support of this contention a prescription-dated 26.11.2005 has been filed. After the death of the deceased first informant and other family members were informed who came at the place of occurrence and with their consent the cremation of the dead body was done on 8.12.2005 but after the cremation first informant and his relatives demanded Rs. 1 lac and on refusal the present F.I.R. has been lodged. The other co-accused, father-in-law, mother-in-law and jeth of the deceased have been released on bail. The applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated.

(3.)IN reply of the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant has been controverted by the A.G.A. by submitting that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized not prior to nine years of the alleged occurrence but it was solemnized about 6 years the prior of incident. There was demand of dowry and to fulfill the same, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The deceased has not died due to her natural death. The medical prescription filed in support of this contention is too old and it is of 26.11.2005 whereas the deceased has been murdered on 8.12.2005 and without giving any information to the police and to the first informant, cremation of the dead body has been done by the applicant and his family members. The applicant being the husband of the deceased is the main accused and the deceased has been murdered on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.
Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and considering the fact that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected.