JUDGMENT P K Lohra, J —This is second bail application on behalf of petitioner Gapa Ram under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.191/2016, registered at Police Station Siwana, District Barmer. 2. In the FIR, petitioner and five other accused-persons were charged for offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet in the matter for aforesaid offences on 28th of February, 2017 against petitioner alone. Presently, trial in Sessions Case No.18/2017 is under progress before District & Sessions Judge, Balotra. 3. At the behest of petitioner, first bail application bearing No.4254/2017 was filed but the same was dismissed on 3rd of August, 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.M. Dhera, submits that prima facie offences are not made out inasmuch as neither there was any demand of dowry at the time of marriage nor any incriminating material has emerged during investigation. Learned counsel would contend that although it is a case of unnatural death of Ms. Leela, wife of petitioner, within seven years of marriage, but, in absence of tangible evidence of subjecting her to cruelty and harassment soon before her death by the petitioner with any demand of dowry offence under Section 304B is not made out. Learned counsel has urged that looking to the nature of marriage, which is ata-sata marriage, and prevailing customs within the community, where dowry system is non-existent, per se it is a case of false implication of the petitioner. Highlighting change in the circumstances after rejection of first bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel that during trial so far eight witnesses are examined and out of them PW1 Akha Ram, PW2 Punja Ram, PW3 Chunni Lal, PW5 Tulsa Ram and PW7 Suki Devi have not supported prosecution case. It is argued by learned counsel that all are near relatives of deceased but they have completely repudiated the demand of dowry with a positive assertion that such custom does not prevail within the community. 5. While, referring to the statements of PW3 Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel submits that during cross-examination the witness has admitted that there was no injury on the person of deceased Ms. Leela. Mr. Dhera has also urged that some of the witnesses has also deposed so as to highlight mental ailment of the deceased and her erratic behaviour to prima facie make out a simple case of suicide without any cause. Leela. Mr. Dhera has also urged that some of the witnesses has also deposed so as to highlight mental ailment of the deceased and her erratic behaviour to prima facie make out a simple case of suicide without any cause. Lastly, learned counsel submits that prosecution has cited twenty seven witnesses and so far only eight witnesses have been examined, and therefore, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time is yet another mitigating factor for not keeping the petitioner under further incarceration, who is in custody since 13th of February, 2017. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the second bail application of petitioner. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that after rejection of first bail application there is no change in the circumstances much less substantial change. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that considering serious delinquencies of the petitioner, who is husband of deceased, his bail plea is liable to be nixed. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Rameshwar Dave, has also reiterated the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor. Mr. Dave would contend that death of Ms. Leela by burning under mysterious circumstances within six months of marriage is sufficient to make out offence under Section 304B IPC. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record including the statements of witnesses recorded during trial. 9. .From the allegations, made in the FIR, it is discernible that complainant has castigated petitioner and other accused persons for perpetrating cruelty on deceased Ms. Leela for demand of dowry. Apart from the allegations in the FIR, PW6 Purkha Ramcomplainant has reiterated the allegation of harassment meted out to his deceased daughter Ms. Leela for demand of dowry. It is also noteworthy that unnatural death of Ms. Leela by burning has occasioned within six months of marriage at her matrimonial home and there is no material on record to show that she was suffering from mental ailment. The autopsy report and evidence of PW3 Sanjay Kumar are clearly and unequivocally showing cause of death due to 55-60% burn. At the moment, trial is also in progress and more than eighteen witnesses are yet to be examined including Dr. Narayan Singh and Dr. Gautam Chand. 10. In this view of the matter, at this stage, I feel dissuaded to accept this second bail application. 11. At the moment, trial is also in progress and more than eighteen witnesses are yet to be examined including Dr. Narayan Singh and Dr. Gautam Chand. 10. In this view of the matter, at this stage, I feel dissuaded to accept this second bail application. 11. Consequently, the second bail application fails and same is hereby rejected.