ORDER : 1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.398/2020 registered at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 498A/34, 406, 406/34, 304B, 304B/34, 302, 302/34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of deceased Renu. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, the marriage of the deceased Renu was solemnised with the petitioner on 25.11.2017 and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry/stridhan was given by the complainant to the in-laws of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, the in-laws of the deceased continuously harassed the deceased physically and mentally. It was submitted that as per prosecution, owing to bad ill treatment at the hands of in-laws, the deceased returned to her parental house. Thus, the mediation proceedings as per social customs took place between the parties and as a result thereof, the deceased went back to her matrimonial house. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, on the date of alleged incident i.e. 12.10.2020, the deceased made a call to her mother informing her that she is being beaten by her in-laws, in connection with dowry demand. Later, on the same day, they came to know that the deceased has been thrown in the water tank by her in-laws. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.10.2020. It was urged that there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner and only omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and his family members, by the complainant. It was submitted that co-accused (father of the petitioner), Hans Raj has already been enlarged on bail, by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.11.2021. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the FIR would reveal that case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of co-accused person, who has been enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel submitted that on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner was not present at his house as he had gone to Bikaner to appear in B.Ed. II year Examination. 4. Learned counsel submitted that on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner was not present at his house as he had gone to Bikaner to appear in B.Ed. II year Examination. Drawing attention of the Court towards the CDR Analysis attached with the challan papers by the investigating agency, learned counsel submitted that on the date of incident, the deceased made two mobile calls to her husband i.e. present petitioner. It was submitted that had the deceased had any complaints with the present petitioner, she would not have made calls to the petitioner on the date of alleged incident. 5. Learned counsel further urged that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.10.2020, however, despite repeated summons by the competent criminal court, the witness of the prosecution are not turning up for recording of their statements. Learned counsel submitted that the prolonged period of custody suffered by the petitioner needs to be considered by this Court, as there is no possibility of an early disposal of the trial, particularly when the prosecution witnesses are not turning up for recording of their testimonies. 6. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to seriousness of the accusations against the present petitioner and gravity of the offences, the petitioner does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 9. The order dated 15.11.2021 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail to co-accused Hans Raj is reproduced below for ready reference:- “The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.398/2020, Police Station Nokha, Distt. Bikaner for the offence under Section498-A, 304-B, 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is father-in-law of the deceased and no specific allegation has been levelled against him. Challan of the case has already been presented. No investigation is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner. Challan of the case has already been presented. No investigation is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that according to the statement of Manohar Lal, Panchayat was held in the house of the petitioner and there is allegation against the petitioner regarding harassment soon before death so the benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the material available on record. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case so also the fact that the principal accused in this case is Pawan Kumar; there is omnibus allegation against the present petitioner and challan of the case has already been presented, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Hansraj S/o Genaram shall be enlarged on bail in FIR No.398/2020, Police Station Nokha, Distt. Bikaner provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.” 10. Having heard submissions advanced at bar and having perused the FIR, challan papers and the statements of various witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, this Court prima facie finds that merely because, co-accused has been released on bail that itself cannot be a ground to release the petitioner on bail, particularly when, co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 15.11.2021 has noted that the petitioner is the principal accused in this case. This Court also does not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that omnibus allegations have been levelled against present petitioner. As a matter of fact, the record of the case and statements of the complainant and mother of the deceased Smt. Padma, clearly shows that allegations of continuous harassment in connection with dowry demand have been levelled against present petitioner. As a matter of fact, the record of the case and statements of the complainant and mother of the deceased Smt. Padma, clearly shows that allegations of continuous harassment in connection with dowry demand have been levelled against present petitioner. The CDR analysis made by the investigating agency, which is part of the challan papers fortify the statements of the complainant and mother of the deceased that soon before the alleged incident, the mother of the deceased had received a call from the deceased. 11. This Court prima facie does not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that had the deceased had any issues with the present petitioner, she would not have made calls to the present petitioner on the date of alleged incident. The alleged conversations between the deceased with her mother and with the present petitioner and the contents of the alleged conversations, is a matter to be examined by the competent criminal court based on the evidence and material produced before it and cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. 12. This Court also prima facie does not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner had gone to Bikaner. In this regard, suffice it to observe that in dowry death cases, it is not necessary for dowry demand to be made immediately before the death and therefore, even if the petitioner was not present at the place of incident, at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner has been wrongly booked in a dowry death case. 13. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of her marriage in unnatural circumstances and there is specific and direct allegation of she being subjected to cruelty and harassment in her matrimonial house at the hands of the present petitioner. 14. It is also to be noted that petitioner is in judicial custody from 13.10.2020, however, looking to the severity of punishment and the period of incarceration which the petitioner may have to suffer in case charges are found to be proved against him, it cannot be said that the petitioner has already suffered prolonged period of custody. 15. 14. It is also to be noted that petitioner is in judicial custody from 13.10.2020, however, looking to the severity of punishment and the period of incarceration which the petitioner may have to suffer in case charges are found to be proved against him, it cannot be said that the petitioner has already suffered prolonged period of custody. 15. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and therefore, the second application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner Pawan Vishnoi stands dismissed. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct competent criminal court to conclude the trial pending against the petitioner at the earliest and make sure that no unnecessary adjournments are granted and the trial is not delayed due to non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, without any plausible reasons.