JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated for dowry death of his wife; that the marriage between the applicant and deceased took place about six years back and a son was born out of the wedlock who is aged about 2½ years at present; that there are allegations of demand of Rs.75,000/-, as dowry on account of requirement for business to be started by the applicant; that the applicant was living at Mumbai and the deceased was adamant to go to Mumbai and for non-fulfillment of her desire she consumed some poisonous substance for committing suicide; that the applicant tried his best to provide her medical aid from Dr. Babulal, Dr. Arshad and at Jeevan Dhara Hospital, Bhadohi but he was advised to take her for treatment to some good hospital, and when she was being carried to Varanasi on way to Varanasi she died; that the demand of money for business does not come within the category of demand of dowry; that in the case of Vipin Jaiswal (A-1) vs. State of A.P. reported in 2013 (2) JIC 377 and in the case of Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar vs. State of Karnataka & Another reported in 2013(2) JIC 392, respectively, the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that demand of money for purchase of Laptop and demand of Rs.10,000/- to pay off loan of Society were not demand of dowry; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that he is in custody since 08.03.2013. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that it is proved from the evidence collected on record that deceased's husband was doing nothing while other family members were working as taxi drivers at Mumbai; that the FIR states that ^^jRus'k jk; dks O;kikj dk cgkuk djds 75000/- dh ngst+ dh ekax dh^^ , that the demand of money made for the purpose of business to be started by applicant also comes within the definition of dowry; that it is wrong to say that the deceased committed suicide, rather poison was administered to her by applicant causing her death; that according to viscera report poison 'aluminium phosphate' was found; that death of wife of applicant has taken place within six years of marriage under other than natural circumstances and there is presumption of dowry death against the applicant, husband under Section 113 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. It is pertinent to mention that in the case of Sunder Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2014 SC 817 Hon'ble The Apex Court has held "that demand of money made for business of accused husband is dowry, if it has connection with marriage and if there is evidence that the accused was unhappy over quantity and quantity of dowry received, the demand made, even though was for business, had connection with marriage and therefore, constitutes dowry." Upon hearing the counsel and perusal of evidence on record, and considering the submissions made, complicity of the offence, severity of punishment, and the totality of facts and circumstances at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail to applicant the husband. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. ———————