Honble SHETHNA, J.–Learned counsel Shri Shah submitted that the learned Sessions Judge released the co-accused Smt. Kanya wife of Babulal, who is mother-in-law of deceased Gayatri @ Baby, therefore, the present petitioner-accused, who is husband of deceased Gayatri be also released on bail. Mr. Shah has produced the order dated 3.7.98 passed by learned Sessions Judge releasing Smt. Kanya on bail. In para 7 of the said order, the learned Judge has taken into consideration the fact that she is an old lady aged 70 years and ill treatment was given by Yatesh Kumar, husband of the deceased Gayatri, who was demanding Rs. 60,000/- or 10 tolas Gold. Once a serious offence under Section 304 B is registered against the accused then the present petitioner being the husband against whom a Specific allegation of demanding dowry is made then he cannot be released on bail. Merely because co-accused has been released on bail that itself would not be a ground to release the present accused petitioner on bail. Hence, the first submission of Mr. Shah is rejected. (2). Second submission raised by Mr. Shah was that in this case the police has wrongly registered the case under Section 304 B against the accused. Accord- ing to him offence, if any, is committed by the accused is at the most under Section 306 IPC, which is punishable upto 10 years. Therefore, he submitted that accused should be released on bail. To make his submission good Mr. Shah pointed out that the marriage of deceased Gayatri with the present accused petitioner took place in 1985 and the lady committed suicide on 26.6.1998, which is admittedly after 13 years of marriage, therefore, no offence under Section 304 B IPC is said to have been committed by the present accused. Section 304 B reads as under :- ``Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ``dowry death, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (3). (3). Under Section 113 B of Evidence Act, a presumption has to be raised by the Court against the accused in the case of dowry death. (4). Prima facie the submission of Mr. Shah that Section 304 B IPC is not applicable in this case seems to be attractive, but if we consider the fact that ``Gauna was performed in 1994, then it would be within seven years. It is not in dispute that it was a child marriage, but only some formalities were observed in 1985. The real marriage would be only when ``Gauna was performed and that was done in 1994. It is only after ``Gauna was performed the husband can have sexual intercourse with his wife and not before that. In this case only after ``Gauna was performed the deceased delivered a female child, who is hardly 18 months old. Ordinarily, no mother would commit suicide when she has got minor female child of hardly 18 months, unless and until there was a torture. The averments made in the FIR have to be taken as it is and the averments made in this case shows that there was a demand of Rs. 60,000/- or 10 tolas Gold from the petitioner accused, who is husband of deceased Gayatri. Hence, this second submission of Mr. Shah also cannot be accepted. (5). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (6). However, it is made clear that this is a prima facie observations made by this Court which will not come in the way of the accused during trial. It goes without saying that the trial Court has to decide the case on the basis of evidence led before it. (7). With these observations, this bail application is dismissed.