Judgment: D.K. Paliwal, J.;— 1. Heard on the bail application. Perused the case diary. 2. This is second application under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. The first application has been dismissed vide order dated 26.08.2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4534/2013. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No. 140/2013 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District Morena, for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after dismissal of the first bail application no progress in trial has been made. Even the charges have not been framed so far. applicant has falsely been implicated. He is in custody since 28.02.2013. Trial will take some time. Therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 4. The application is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. 5. The applicant is husband of the deceased. The deceased died within two months of her marriage under suspicious circumstances and she was harassed in connection with demand of dowry. It is true that applicant is under custody since 28.02.2013. It is also true that so far charge has not been framed. But from the certified copies submitted on behalf of the applicant it appears that adjournment has been sought by the Counsel of the applicant. On 10.09.2013 another Counsel appeared and sought adjournment. Therefore, the applicant cannot blame the prosecution for delay in framing charges rather he blames himself. Taking into consideration that deceased died within two months of her marriage, applicant is husband of the deceased. 6. Applicant is not entitled for bail. Hence, this M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.