IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 21394 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 1, 2010. Narinder Kaur ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) Crl. Misc. No. M- 22406 of 2010(O&M). Saraj Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Bhavna, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CRM No.M-21394 of 2010 This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.80 dated 03.07.2010, under Section 304-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kot Isse Khan, District Moga. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record and orders dated 20.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide which anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners-accused were dismissed. Brief allegations are that deceased –Rajbir Kaur was married with Surinder Singh, co-accused in October, 2009. Complainant i.e. father of the deceased had given sufficient dowry as per capacity in the marriage. Dowry articles were entrusted to all the family members including the present petitioners. However, after about three months of the marriage husband, parents-in-law of the deceased and the present petitioners started giving beatings to her on account of dowry. There are allegations that they had given some poisonous substance to the deceased due to which she expired on 03.07.2010 i.e. within one year of the marriage. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- accused that petitioner-Saraj Singh is elder brother of husband of the deceased whereas petitioner-Narinder Kaur is sister-in-law of the deceased and that they have been fasely implicated in this case. Bail applications have been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that there are specific allegations against the petitioners-accused and that mother-in-law of the deceased is yet to be arrested. 2 CRM No.M-21394 of 2010 This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl.M.No.M-21394 of 2010 on 02.08.2010 and in Crl.Misc.No.M-22406 of 2010 on 05.08.2010 had granted interim bail to the petitioners and it was observed that husband and parents-in-law of the deceased have already been arrested. However, admitted facts are that before passing of orders granting interim bail to the petitioners on 02.08.2010 and 05.08.2010 only father-in-law was arrested on 07.07.2010. However, neither husband nor mother-in-law of the deceased was arrested. Husband was arrested much later i.e. on 25.09.2010. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that he was not sure about the arrest of the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased when interim order were passed by this Court. Further contends that he has never undertaken to get the mother-in-law arrested as mentioned in order dated 29.09.2010. Be that as it may, there are specific allegations against the petitioners-accused. Daughter of the complainant had died within one year of the marriage due to harassment on account of dowry by petitioners-accused. The case is at initial stage of investigation and even co-accused i.e. mother- in-law of the deceased has not been arrested so far. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra- ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners- accused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant applications for anticipatory bail filed by Narinder Kaur and Saraj Singh are, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim orders of bail dated 02.08.2010 and 05.08.2010 already granted in their favour stand vacated. 3 CRM No.M-21394 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 1, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4