SHIV SHANKER, J. This is the second bail application due to rejection of first bail application in absence of learned Counsel for the applicant, in case crime No. C-22 of 2004, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I. P. C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S. Kotwali, District Deoria. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. 3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that this occurrence had allegedly taken place on 9-7-2006. However, First Information Report was lodged with great delay, which was lodged on the basis of the application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. It is further contended that there was no demand of dowry from the side of the applicant and she was kept with great love and affection by him. She was woman of free nature and modern lady, as a result of which she has influenced with many friends as well as she had illicit relationship with her brother-in-law namely Anandeshwar Mishra. Therefore, she left the house of the applicant alongwith the entire ornament and articles and cash in collusion with her brother-in-law on 3-7-2004 in the mid night at about 4. 30 a. m. Applicant approached to the house of her father where he was assured by her parents that she will come back after some days. On account of being social reputation this fact was not disclosed by the applicant before anyone and it was not reported to the police station concerned. In the meantime one application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was moved by her father by making false case of dowry death. 4. It is further contended that one love letter in her own hand writing, which was addressed to her brother-in-law Anandeshwar Mishra found by the applicant after her leaving his house. Its copy has been filed, which reveals that there was illicit relationship between Mamta (wife of the applicant) and Anandeshwar Mishra is confirmed. 5. 4. It is further contended that one love letter in her own hand writing, which was addressed to her brother-in-law Anandeshwar Mishra found by the applicant after her leaving his house. Its copy has been filed, which reveals that there was illicit relationship between Mamta (wife of the applicant) and Anandeshwar Mishra is confirmed. 5. It is further contended that Rama Shanker Dubey, father of the applicant moved application before Superintendent of Police, District Deoria on 3-9-2004 and another on 19-7-2004 wherein it was mentioned that Mamta is alive and in collusion of her brother-in-law, Anandeshwar Mishra with the help of her parents she has hidden herself and informant has kept Mamta at some unknown place and the application/f. I. R. was registered to harass the applicant and interested to put pressure for the purpose of ransom on the basis of false F. I. R. There is no recovery made by the police personnel but police is not interested to support the averment of the applicant. 6. It is further contended that arrest of the applicant was stayed by this Court till submission of the charge-sheet and police has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant. Thereafter, applicant and other co-accused persons moved Criminal Misc. Application No. 3376 of 2005 under Section 482 Cr. P. C. in this Court in which Investigating Officer vide order dated 23-7-2005 was directed to explain whether victim Mamta is died or alive. Thereafter, further order was also passed by this Court on 20-4-2005, which is quoted below : "in pursuance of order dated 13-4-2005, the I. O. Mr. Surendra Nath Tiwari, C. O. Is present in the Court. He produced the case diary wherein it has been mentioned that Mamta is dead. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that he has received the information that the above named victim Mamta is not dead and she is living some where in Kolkata, but he could not furnish any address to enable the I. O. to approach the place of her living and find out the truth if any, six weeks for counter-affidavit. List on 5-7- 2005. " 7. Above order reveals that Smt. Mamta is still alive and she is living with friend Jagmohan, resident of village Jamuha since 3- 7-2004 when she left the applicants house without informing the applicant. 8. List on 5-7- 2005. " 7. Above order reveals that Smt. Mamta is still alive and she is living with friend Jagmohan, resident of village Jamuha since 3- 7-2004 when she left the applicants house without informing the applicant. 8. It is further contended that when factum of death of Mamta had come in the knowledge of the first informant on 9-7-2004 and also on 12-7-2004 in the Panchayat, however, F. I. R. was not lodged immediately. It was lodged with undue delay. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation against the applicant regarding the cruelty of demand of dowry and he has been implicated falsely and he is also languishing in jail since 26-4-2004. 9. It is further contended that Circle Officer City, Mr. Surendra Nath Tiwari submitted Parcha No. V in case diary dated 4-10-2004 and stated therein that dead-body of Smt. Mamta could not be recovered upto now, nor any information with regard to death of deceased could be obtained from anybody even Mukhbir has not given any information about the death of the deceased Mamta. It is further contended that address given in the above letter written by Smt. Mamta to her brother-in-law was enquired and its was found correct address and that house was recorded in the name of Vansh Narain, who is grand- father of Sanjay Srivastava. Therefore, Smt. Mamta has not died till today and she is living with her lover as mentioned in her letter. No case of dowry death is made out. 10. On the other hand learned A. G. A. has urged that case of dowry death is made out against the applicant also, who is husband. 11. After considering submissions made on behalf of both the parties and perused the record, it appears that marriage in between Smt. Mamta and present applicant Hanuman Dubey and solemnized about three years ago of the alleged occurrence. This fact is not disputed that Smt. Mamta had disappeared from the house of the applicant. According to contention of learned Counsel for the applicant that this fact was disclosed to the first informant, who is uncle of the victim on 9-7-2004. Thereafter, she could not be recovered as alive all now. No any information was given by applicant to the concerned police station regarding alleged missing of the victim from his house. No sufficient explanation has been given regarding it. Thereafter, she could not be recovered as alive all now. No any information was given by applicant to the concerned police station regarding alleged missing of the victim from his house. No sufficient explanation has been given regarding it. He is the husband of the victim. She was living in his custody at his house. He was responsible for all kind of affairs. According to the F. I. R. no any information was also given to house of the parents regarding her missing. First informant, who is the uncle of the victim reached at the house of the applicant on 9-7-2004 and asked regarding her niece Mamta. Sufficient explanation was not given regarding her and dated that she had left his house. It is worthwhile to mention here that there was further persistence of demand of dowry after marriage as ring chain, Colour T. V. and such demand could note fulfilled. Therefore, soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by applicant being husband. She was taken by the applicant on 14-6-2004. Thereafter, she did not find at the house of the applicant to the complainant on 19-7-2004. This also shows that she has been killed and her dead-body has been disappeared to save his legal punishment. It is worthwhile to mention here that there was love affairs with her brother-in- law Anandeshwar Misra. In such circumstances, she could be traced out as alive till now while three years had elapsed. After her disappearance, it appears that for saving prosecution false alleged love letter has been produced on behalf of the applicant. At this stage, no finding can be given that it has been written or not by Smt. Mamta after alleged occurrence. Letter shows that it has been sent to the addressee now it has come in his custody. 12. According to direction of this Court as contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that report be submitted regarding her death or alive. Police has submitted a report wherein it has not been mentioned that Smt. Mamta is alive not dead. After three years of the alleged occurrence, she is not traceable either dead or alive. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that she is not alive. Police has submitted a report wherein it has not been mentioned that Smt. Mamta is alive not dead. After three years of the alleged occurrence, she is not traceable either dead or alive. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that she is not alive. The contention of the prosecution has great force that she has been killed by the applicant also, who is the husband and her dead-body has been disappeared for the purpose of destroying evidence within seven years of her marriage. She was subjected to cruelty soon before her death due to non-fulfliment of such demand of dowry. 13. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie case of the dowry death is made out against the present applicant, who is the husband of the deceased. Rule of the parity cannot be given to the husband of the deceased in dowry death case as the case of the husband is always distinguishable from the case of other relative of the deceased. Conduct of the applicant is also unnatural on the basis of the above grounds. In such circumstances, I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant. 14. Consequently, the bail application of the present applicant Hanuman Dubey is hereby rejected. Bail application rejected. .