JUDGMENT G.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant Rakesh has argued that there is no allegation of demand of dowry and the prosecution case shows that the appellant demanded Rs, 50,000/- to be deposited in fixed deposit for marriage of one of his daughter In fact this demand conies within the definition of dowry as it has been raised after the marriage. It is irrelevant that the money was to be deposited in fixed deposit for marriage of one of the daughter of the appellant though it was the responsibility of the appellant to marry his daughter and not the responsibility of the parents of the deceased wife.
3. In this case the accusation is that within seven years of the marriage unnatural death taken place of the deceased wife in the house of the husband appellant who tortured soon before her death on the demand of dowry. I am not inclined to grant bail to appellant Rakesh, The prayer of bail is refused.