BA2 88/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. L.K. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.S. Bora, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent. The first bail application was rejected by an order of this Court dated 10.05.2011. The First Information Report lodged against the applicant and other co-accused is that the death was caused on account of consistent demand for dowry. The marriage was performed on 5th May, 2009 and the incident occurred on 29th July, 2010, i.e., within seven years of the marriage. The applicant is the husband of the deceased and was present on the date of incident. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in view of the statement of the mother and the maternal uncle of the deceased, it is quite clear that the ingredients of Section 304- B I.P.C. is not made out, namely, the second part that the deceased was subjected to cruelty with regard to demand for dowry soon before the incident and consequently, on this ground, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Having perused the statement of these two witnesses, the Court prima facie finds that the prosecution version has more or less been proved by these witnesses. The fact whether the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. could be made out or not, would be based on the appreciation of the evidence of all the witnesses and at this stage, this appreciation cannot be made on the basis of the statement of two witnesses. In the light of the aforesaid and without commenting anything further on the merits of the case, the Court does not find any reason to enlarge the applicant on bail. The second bail application is rejected. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 24-11-2011 SP