IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 8529 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.4.2010 Dilawar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Present: Mr Bipin Ghai, Sr Advocate with Mr Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr KC Gupta, Sr DAG Haryana. Mr Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the complainant. S.S.SARON, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc M-8529 of 2010 filed by Dilawar Singh and Criminal Misc M-10005 of 2010 filed by Kamla, wife of Dilawar Singh. Both the petitioners seek regular bail in a case that has been registered against them. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sanjit, whose sister namely Rachna was married to Chirag son of the petitioners – Dilawar Singh and Kamla. According to the complainant – Sanjit, the petitioners had harassed his sister and raised a demand for a car. The marriage between Chirag and Rachna was solemnized on 7.12.2005. Rachna died on 3.12.2009 by consuming poison. The complainant inter alia alleged that in August 2009, the petitioners were pressing Rachna for bringing a car. The complainant stated that when he left Rachna back in her matrimonial home, he promised them to give a car in the months of November or December. He gave Rs 20,000/- in cash to Chirag – husband Cr Misc M- 8529 of 2010 2 of Rachna, so that she can settle in her house. It is alleged that on account of not being able to give a car, Rachna died in her matrimonial home. The case was initially registered for the offences under Sections 304B, 498A, 406/34 IPC. During investigation of the case, report dated 22.12.2009 was submitted by DSP (Traffic) Panipat. It was observed in the said investigation that Chirag – husband of deceased Rachna was living at Chandigarh and was doing service in Taj Hotel. Rachna had been brought- up in a rural atmosphere and they could not adjust due to this reason. The main reason for the dispute between Chirag and Rachna was that they could not adjust and Rachna was not kept at Chandigarh. Rachna had given birth to a son also after 1-1/2 years of the marriage. The DSP (Traffic), Panipat observed that it may be inquired into from the vicinity where Rachna lived as regards the standard of living of Dilawar and Chirag’s family. It had also come to light that Rachna had no complaint against Chirag’s parents i.e. the petitioners but the parents (petitioners) could not convince Chirag to keep his wife with him. It was also found that Chirag being elder, did not listen to his parents. The main reason for committing suicide by Rachna, it was observed was that Rachna was not to the liking of her husband who was not keeping her with him, due to which she committed suicide. It was observed that nothing had come to light that it happened because of not giving car in dowry. The matter was also considered by the Deputy District Attorney in the office of SSP Panipat. In his opinion, it was observed that in 2007, the accused had cars. Dilawar Singh had an Alto car and Chirag had a Santro car. Besides, the salaries of the accused are also mentioned; Dilawar Singh was getting Rs 45,000/- per month; Kamla was getting Rs 26,000/- per month and Chirag was getting Rs 23,000/- per month. It was also Cr Misc M- 8529 of 2010 3 noticed that Ankit Sandhu son of Dilawar Singh (petitioner) was getting US $ 4350 per month. Therefore, it was observed that when the accused were having two separate cars since 2007, they would not have demanded a car. Accordingly, the offences under Sections 304B and 406 IPC, it was recommended, be deleted. Learned counsel for the State submits that the challan in the case has been filed for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A/34 IPC. The question whether the petitioner had abetted the commission of suicide, is to be considered by the Court after evidence has been led. In case material comes on record that the petitioner had harassed Rachna in connection with demands for dowry soon before her death, appropriate modification in this regard can be sought. Besides, the matter can also be considered at the time of consideration for framing the charge. However, for the present, it would be just and expedient, keeping in view the report of the DSP (Traffic) and the opinion of the Deputy District Attorney that the petitioners are granted the concession of bail. Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed and the respective petitioners, on their furnishing personal bond and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM Panipat, shall be admitted to bail. 26.4.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge