ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner- Nishant @ Rahul S/o Shree Liladhar under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No. 349/2020 registered at Police Station RKPURAM, Kota, Rajasthan for the offence(s) under Sections 304-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter, owing to the sad demise of a bride at her matrimonial home otherwise he has to do nothing with the alleged offence. It is submitted that simply because a bride dies in her matrimonial home within seven years of the marriage, does not perse sufficient to draw a presumption that she was maltreated for or in connection of demand of dowry and that the demand was meted out to her soon before her death and death occurred other than in normal circumstances. It is strenuously urged that even the complainant party is not firm, what was demanded by the in laws and when the demand was made or whether the demand was fulfilled or any promise was made to fulfill at any subsequent date. There is a major discrepancy rather conflict in between the previous statement and statement recorded during the trial. The brother of the deceased- Vikas who is complainant and examined as PW1 has categorically stated that the demand of Rs.5 Lacs as stated by him while he was examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. was not true and the demand of motorcycle was not made at the time of marriage. What is emanating from the record that initially in the FIR and the statement recorded during investigation, the main allegation of maltreatment or making demand of dowry was made against sister-in-law and the other relatives but not specifically against the petitioner whilst the other persons have been exonerated and charge sheet is filed only against the appellant. Nowhere in the examination-in-Chief or in the FIR, any specific allegation has been made regarding demand of dowry ever made by the petitioner from the complainant. Nowhere in the examination-in-Chief or in the FIR, any specific allegation has been made regarding demand of dowry ever made by the petitioner from the complainant. In this view of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be worth considerable that although it was an unfortunate incident but at the same time it was mysterious and the cause behind her death might be some other personal reasons but for sure not of the demand of dowry and that no cruelty meted out to her in this relation. He is behind the bars since long. The trial would likely to take long time to conclude. Thus, in view of the evidence brought on record till date, his further incarceration would not be justifiable and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. Heard. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused - petitioner- Nishant @ Rahul S/o Shree Liladhar shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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.