VINOD PRASAD, J. This bail application has been filed by applicant Sandeep, who is he husband of late Mrs. Sarika (deceased), a young married wife aged about 22 years. 2. The allegations against the applicant as is levelled in the F. I. R. of Crime No. 478 of 2005, under Sections 304-B I. P. C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad are that the applicant was married with Sarika on 11-5-2004. After the marriage the applicant and the in-laws started torturing the deceased and assaulting her because of insufficient dowry. 3. On 3-9-2005, it is alleged, that Smt. Sarika was murdered by the applicant, his mother Smt. Kamlesh and Father Jai Prakash. Some neighbour gave the information regarding death of the deceased to the informant Ram Kishore father of Sarika. On reaching the house alongwith the family members informant found that the body of the deceased was lying in the Aagan of the house. Informant got the F. I. R. scribed through Desh Bandhu Vashisth regarding the murder of his daughter because of lust for dowry and lodged it at police station Modi Nagar at 5. 40 p. m. on 3-9-2005 itself. The inquest on the dead-body was conducted on the same day between 6. 00 p. m. to 7. 45 p. m. and thereafter the post- mortem was conducted on 4-9-2005 at 11. 00 a. m. by the two Government Doctors, Doctor Pramod Kumar and Doctor Jitendra Kumar. The post-mortem report of the deceased indicated that cause of her death was ante-mortem strangulation and her viscera was preserved for possibility of any evidence of poisoning. Viscera report of the deceased dated 20-3-2006 supplied by learned A. G. A. , which is taken on record, indicated that no poison was found in the viscera. 4. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Santosh Tripathi in support of this bail application and Sri Sudhir Agrawal, learned A. G. A. for opposition. 5. The order was reserved but on the application by learned Counsel for the applicant, matter was listed for further hearing and has been reheard. 6. 4. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Santosh Tripathi in support of this bail application and Sri Sudhir Agrawal, learned A. G. A. for opposition. 5. The order was reserved but on the application by learned Counsel for the applicant, matter was listed for further hearing and has been reheard. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is in jail since September 2005 and in the trial Doctor N. P. Tyagi has been examined in the trial as P. W. 4, who has stated that he had treated the deceased as a suspected case of poisoning, who was got admitted in the Jivan Hospital and Stone Centre, G. T. Road Modi Nagar, by the applicant. He further contended that the conduct of the applicant is such that it cannot be said that he had committed the murder of the deceased. He had filed the copy of the statement of Doctor N. P. Tyagi on a supplementary affidavit as Annexure SA-1. He further contended that there is no demand of dowry and the mother of the deceased herself had stated that no demand of dowry was made vide Annexure No. 3 to the bail application. He further submitted that in this case Section 113-B has no application. He further submitted that the treatment was given to the deceased regarding suspected case of poisoning in the above Jivan Hospital and Stone Centre. He further submitted that the nail of the deceased was synosed and the post-mortem also indicate the case of poisoning. He further submitted that there is something fishy in the prosecution case and the time between the death and admission in the hospital is very small and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant had committed murder of the deceased. 7. Learned A. G. A. on the other hand contended that the deceased died within one and a half years of her marriage. She was hale and hearty and the viscera report dated 20-3-2006 of the Central Forensic Science Labrotary does not indicate that any poison was found in the viscera. He further contended that post-mortem was conducted by two Government Doctors, who clearly opined that the deceased has died because of ante-mortem strangulation and in his scalp hair even dried leaves were present. He further contended that post-mortem was conducted by two Government Doctors, who clearly opined that the deceased has died because of ante-mortem strangulation and in his scalp hair even dried leaves were present. He further submitted that the inquest was conducted in the house of the applicant and if the deceased had died while she was transported to the hospital her inquest should have been conducted in the hospital. He further submitted that the applicant is the husband and there are allegations of demand of dowry and applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 8. I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. It is not in dispute that the deceased, a young wife aged about 22 years, has been done to death. The viscera report which has been supplied by learned A. G. A. , which forms the part of the record of this bail application clearly indicates that no poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. The cause of her death according to the post-mortem examination report was strangulation. It is mind boggling to cogitate that if the deceased was strangulated to death, where was the question of getting her admitted in Jivan Hospital and Stone Centre and where was the question her being treated by Doctor Nathi Ram Tyagi P. W. 4. Moreover, the treatment of Doctor Nathi Ram Tyagi regarding poison etc. is found to be false and manufactured evidence because in Forensic Science Laboratory report no poison are found. There are allegations of demand of dowry and the defence of the accused is contradictory to post-mortem report and the Forensic Science Labrotary report. 9. There is no reason to grant bail to the applicant. His bail prayer is declined and is rejected. Bail granted. .