IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.Petition No.M-32262 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.12.2009 Smt.Manjit Kaur and another. ....... Petitioners through Shri J.B.S.Gill, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab. ....... Respondent through Shri Gaurav Dhuriwala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioners in an offence registered vide F.I.R.No.163 dated 7.9.2009 under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. at Police Station, Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. Petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law, while petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased- Inderjit Kaur, who had died after about a year of the marriage to Balwinder Singh (son of petitioner no.1). Learned counsel for the petitioners made a reference to the dying declaration of Inderjit Kaur which was recorded on 6.9.2009 at 3.30 P.M. Wherein she had not attributed any role to the petitioners in causing her death. He further contended that the petitioners are in custody for the Crl.Misc.Petition No. M-32262 of 2009 -2- .... last three months and challan has since been submitted and that petitioner no.2 is having a minor child, who is also lodged in jail with her. He, thus, contended that considering the fact that the petitioners have not been attributed any specific role and also considering the fact that at best, the case against them can be considered of having raised demands of dowry and also the fact that they have not participated in the occurrence on account of which the death of the deceased took place, they deserves the concession of bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from H.C.Iqbal Singh, has contended that since the death of the deceased has occurred within one year of the marriage, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have perused the paper-book. To a specific question put to the learned counsel for the respondent-State, who is assisted by H.C.Iqbal Singh, it was stated that during investigation, the petitioners have not been found to have played any specific role in causing the death of the deceased. It is evident that the deceased had died on 6.9.2009 and even though the dying declaration, prima facie, appeared to be incomplete, no further statement was recorded before her death. Learned counsel for the State has also been able to show prima facie any material on the basis of which it can be inferred that the petitioners had actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence. Crl.Misc.Petition No. M-32262 of 2009 -3- .... Be that as it may, considering the fact that petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law and is an aged lady and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law, who has a minor child and who is lodged in jail with her and also the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, this petition is accepted and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the instant case subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. December 14,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge