house and after delivery of a male child, when informed the accused, he refused to see even a new born child unless additional demand dowry meted out as a condition; that even mediation held through one Thirupaiah, advocate and one Krishnaiah, it was failed; that the de facto complainant, later, some how, could convince the accused and joined him on 27.03.2017 but there is no change in his attitude and also his parents including further mediation through parents of the de facto complainant with accused and through elders by names, Tota Hussaianaih, Konka Subbaiah, Sammatham Ramachandrudu; that on 09.12.2017, the accused agreed to receive the de facto complainant when counselling by the Police from her approaching the Police Station and it is, on the self same day, after reached the house of the accused by de facto complainant with the male child, the accused tried to kill her, she was beaten with stick and sustained injuries and for her cries neighbours came to her rescue. It is, on the advise of the elders, she presented the report on 10.12.2017. 4. The contentions of the petitioner in the bail application vis-à-vis the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that he is innocent and it is a concocted story by false implication with delayed report. 5. Undisputedly, the petitioner went unsuccessful in seeking anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.P.No.2055 of 2018 dated 28.02.2018 and later, only A2 and A3 were granted
