IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-9085 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.04.2009 Anoop Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of Anoop Singh and Kulwinder Kaur who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased namely Gagandeep Kaur. According to allegations in the FIR, deceased was harassed by her in-laws immediately after marriage for having brought less dowry and also for not bringing a car. It was promised that husband of the deceased namely Gurnam Singh shall take the deceased with her when he would come on leave. However, this did not happen. According to the FIR, uncle of the deceased namely Tarsem Lal, went to the house of in-laws of the deceased to request them to take her back but was sent back with the same demand i.e. a car. When Tarsem Singh, narrated this to the parents of the deceased, the deceased committed suicide on 09.02.2009. As a result of this present FIR under Sections 498-A and 304- B IPC was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that death took Crl. Misc No. M-9085 of 2009 -2- place when the deceased was residing with her parents since 31.08.2008 and thus, no offence under Section 304-B IPC is made out against the petitioners. He, thus, prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State has however, vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He has submitted that uncle of the deceased, Tarsem Lal had gone to the house of in-laws of the deceased on 07.02.2009 with a request that the girl may be rehabilitated. However, her in-laws refused to do so. Rather they complained that car had not been given in dowry. Feeling aggrieved due to demand of car by her in-laws, daughter of the complainant committed suicide on 09.02.2009. Keeping in view the allegations against the petitioners and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed. 23.04.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE