Vedpal,J. - (1.) THIS bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Ashish Kumar alias Bablu, who is detained in case crime no. 188 of 2007 under Sections 498-A,304-B I.P.C. and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nawabganj,district Pratapgarh. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. at considerable length and perused the record . It is alleged by the prosecution that deceased Smt. Rani was married with Ashish Kumar Mishra alias Bablu about three years before her death. That on 25.11.2007 accused-applicant along with his family members committed dowry death of Smt. Rani on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is further alleged by the prosecution that Smt. Rani was being harassed consistently by accused applicant and his family members for non- fulfilment of demand of dowry. The age of the deceased at the time of her death was about 21 years. The report of the said incident was lodged by Amar Nath Tiwari, the father of the deceased at the police station, on the basis of which a case for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304 -B IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the applicant, his mother and brother. It is argued on behalf of the applicant regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence that the allegation of demand of dowry is not true and the applicant has been implicated falsely. That the allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against him just to mount the pressure upon him to return all the articles which were given in the marriage. That all the co-accused having similar role have been admitted to bail. That the applicant has no criminal history. That in the post mortem, no ante- mortem injury was found on the person of the deceased and deceased herself had taken poisonous matter, as a result of which she died and this is not a case of dowry death. That there is no reliable evidence against the applicant and as such the applicant deserves bail. The bail is however opposed by learned A.G.A. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties along with the grounds taken by the applicant in his bail application. The death had occurred within a period of seven years from the date of marriage. There are specific allegations that consistently demand of dowry was being made and the deceased was being harassed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. There are sufficient materials against applicant. It is a settled law that at the stage of consideration of bail application,detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case is not required to be undertaken. The broad spectrum of the case is to be seen at this stage apart from the nature and severity of the offence. The applicant is the husband of the deceased and he was solely responsible for the betterment, safety and security of his wife. The case of co-accused admitted to bail cannot be said to be at par with the present applicant. There are sufficient materials against the applicant to connect him with the crime in question. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. The bail is therefore refused and the application for bail is rejected. However, it is directed that the learned trial court shall proceed with the case expeditiously and will try to dispose of the case preferably within six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Office is also directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned.;