Crl. Misc. No. M- 36495 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 36495 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 18, 2010 Udayvir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. TS Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. Petitioner,Udayvir Singh son of Tek Ram,, who is father-in-law of the deceased, has come up with the present petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 233 dated 7.6.2009 registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, District Bhiwani, under Sections 304B/34 IPC. The deceased Jyoti died as a result of sulphas poisoning on 1.6.2009 and her dead body was cremated after the inquest proceedings were held and autopsy was performed. During the inquest proceedings, statement of Dara, brother of the deceased, was recorded, in which he stated that had thoroughly satisfied himself regarding the death of the deceased and that she had no problem in the house of her in-laws. Subsequently, on 7.6.2009, a written application was given by the father of the deceased to Crl. Misc. No. M- 36495 of 2009 2 the police and on the basis thereof, the above said FIR was registered. He came with the version that he had given dowry beyond his capacity at the time of the marriage of the deceased with Vikas, who, alongwith his parents, had been harassing her on account of demand of dowry and had raised a demand of Rs. 50,000/-. He also made a statement that dead body was cremated forcibly and that his son, whose statement was recorded during inquest proceedings, had no knowledge about the demands being made by the accused as he was living in Chhatisgarh. According to the petitioner, his son Vikas and the deceased consumed poison to end their lives. However, his son was removed to the hospital and was saved. From the facts of the case, suspicion arose as to whether the deceased took sulphas tablets voluntarily or those were forcibly administered to her and in order create a defence, Vikas accused also consumed some poisonous substance. However, it has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in that eventuality, the petitioner cannot be said to have administered such a poison to the deceased as he was not present at the time of the occurrence and was away to the place of his duty. In order to create confidence in the plea of alibi, the petitioner has placed on record certificate issued by the SDO, Sub Division, DHBVNL, Badhra (Bhiwani). As per that certificate he remained on duty at the said place during the night of 31.5.2009 and the morning of 1.6.2009. It may be said that at the time poison was consumed or forcibly administered to the deceased, he was not present, but the fact remains that it is in the FIR that he had also been harassing the deceased on the account of demand of dowry. That harassment was soon before the death of the deceased. There is a reasonable ground for believing that he committed offence under Crl. Misc. No. M- 36495 of 2009 3 Section 304B IPC. The offences of dowry death are on increase now a days. It has been observed by this Court in Mulk Raj versus State of Punjab 1998 (1) RCR (Crl.) 43, that keeping in view the trend which is now going on and laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the dowry deaths have to be viewed with seriousness. The confidence of the society cannot be allowed to be shaken in the law courts. Such like cases must be dealt with deterrently. In view of the above facts, I do not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail and the petition is hereby dismissed. However, the observations made above, while deciding this petition, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. February 18, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE