Currently, a young bride of 20, within three months of her marriage, has died under circumstances that, upon initial examination, seem to rule out the possibility of a natural death. Evidently, the applicant was present with her at this critical time. Therefore, according to the legislative intent expressed by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, particularly the introduction of Section 113-A, it is not an appropriate stage to assert that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment.

All that can be stated at present is that, having heard the counsel for both parties at length and after examining the investigating agency's report, the High Court is not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

However, this will not prevent the applicant from making another attempt immediately after the charge sheet is filed. If the documents produced in court reveal something beneficial for the accused, he should not be disadvantaged by this order of the Court. With these observations, the bail application is rejected.

On the grounds that the co-accused, who was bailed out, lives far from the incident site, bail may not be granted. Where a specific allegation has been made, bail cannot be granted.

Where the deceased was beaten and her head was banged against the wall, it was held that at this stage, evidence cannot be scrutinized. Bail cannot be granted.

The refusal of bail to the accused of serious offenses was not punitive, as seen in Sandeep Ahooja vs. State of MP (1988) 1 MPWN 126.

Please note that while I've made the text grammatically correct, the legal content and implications remain unchanged and should be reviewed by a legal professional.