In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-22421 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:5.8.2010 Smt. Chhota Devi .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased Suman, filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against her on 20.5.2010 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 Indian Penal Code. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Raj Pal son of Banwari Lal father of the deceased Suman. It is alleged by him that he had married his two daughters with Billu and Sonu sons of Sheo Chand. He gave sufficient dowry in the marriage. The in-laws of his daughters demanded more dowry. The complainant on 20.5.2010 was informed that his daughter Suman had got burnt with fire. Then the complainant with his brother and son went to the in-laws of his daughter at Village Bhedanti. When he reached there he saw that his daughter Suman was lying dead after being burnt. The complainant had full doubt that his daughter had been set on fire by Sheo Chand father-in-law, Chhota Devi Cr. Misc. No.M-22421 of 2010 [2] mother-in-law (petitioner) and Billu husband of Suman for not giving dowry. She was troubled for not bringing dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner had harassed her daughter-in-law Suman (deceased) in connection with demand for dowry. It is submitted that the petitioner is unable to move . She has to look after her five months old grandson and her own ten years son who is school going. It is submitted that there was no complaint regarding demand for dowry before the incident. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that Suman had died in her matrimonial home within two years of the marriage. The complainant has alleged that his daughter was harassed in connection with demand for dowry. The learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul in his order dated 29.7.2010 while declining the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner observed that during investigation the statement of one Mittal son of Banwari, uncle of the deceased was also recorded who categorically stated that Suman had died due to harassment meted to her by her in-laws by raising the demand for dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, 2005 (1) RCR (Cr.) 986 (SC). In the said case, it was observed that defence version was that the deceased had suffered from depression and was under medical treatment. Therefore, pre- arrest bail was granted in the said case. Learned counsel has further referred to the case of Ram Karan v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 467 (P&H). In the said case there was no categoric allegation regarding demand for dowry. In the present case, however, there is a categoric allegation that Cr. Misc. No.M-22421 of 2010 [3] the deceased Suman was harassed in connection with demand for dowry. The complainant who is father of the deceased and Mittal son of Banwari who is uncle of the deceased had categorically stated that there was demand in connection with dowry. In Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1987 SC 737, it was held that when the matter regarding unnatural death of daughter-in-law in her father-in-law's house is under investigation it is not prudent for the High Court to grant anticipatory bail. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. August 5, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*