ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to office objections. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to office objections is accepted. The office objections are over-ruled. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.180/2015 of Maski Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(B), 302 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, The deceased-Lalitha was given in marriage to the petitioner/accused on 04.04.2015 by giving dowry and utensils. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was addicted to bad habits and he used to abuse and ill-treat the deceased in demand of additional dowry and gold. It is further alleged that the said demand of the petitioner was informed by the deceased to her parents. Inturn, she has been advised saying that everything will be set right during the passage of time. On 07.12.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant received information by the petitioner to the effect that his daughter has committed suicide. Immediately, he went there and noticed the dead body. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner/accused has caused the death of the deceased by strangulating. On the basis of the above allegations, the complaint was filed and a case has been registered against the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 6. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he was working as agriculturist. At the time of alleged incident, he was not present in the house and he had been to the field for attending field work. He has further contended that further statement of the complainant itself would indicate that there was no demand for further dowry by the petitioner. He has further contended that as the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. He has further contended that further statement of the complainant itself would indicate that there was no demand for further dowry by the petitioner. He has further contended that as the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 7. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the petitioner in demand of dowry has caused the death of the deceased by strangulating that too within one year of the marriage of the deceased and it is not a suicidal death. As such, the petitioner is directly involved in the alleged offence. He has further contended that the accused and the deceased were only the persons who were staying in the house and he has to explain for what reason the deceased has committed suicide. At this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have gone through the contents of the complaint, FIR and other material produced along with the petition. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there are no injuries over the dead body of the deceased-Lalitha and as such, there is no question of petitioner causing the death by strangulating and the said death is a suicidal death. But as could be seen from the contents of the postmortem report, in the external appearance, it has been specifically mentioned that there were multiple ligature marks over the front neck, bruises and petechial hemorrhages over front and side of the neck. On going through the same, it would indicate that petitioner had overt-acts in the alleged crime and he has directly involved in the alleged incident. Though further statement of the complainant indicates that there was no further demand of dowry by the petitioner, the question is that who has caused the death of the deceased. The postmortem report indicates that it is not a suicidal death but it is a murder. Though further statement of the complainant indicates that there was no further demand of dowry by the petitioner, the question is that who has caused the death of the deceased. The postmortem report indicates that it is not a suicidal death but it is a murder. When there is prima facie case made out against the petitioner and the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I feel that it is not just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. 10. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed. 11. Since the petitioner is in custody, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the case.