In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. Nos.16652-53 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No.M-32961 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:19.4.2010 Rajender .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. N.S. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. M. Nos.16652-53 of 2010: Notice of the criminal miscellaneous to Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. K.C. Gupta, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice. The ration card dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure-P.2), ration card dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure-P.3) and letter dated 15.10.2009 (Annexure-P.4) (wrongly mentioned as Annexure-P.5 in the criminal miscellaneous application) attached with the criminal miscellaneous applications are taken on record subject to just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. Cr.M. No.M-32961/2009: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Cr. Misc. No.M-32961 of 2009 [2] The petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Poonam seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 15.6.2009 for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 IPC at Police Station Chandni Bagh (Panipat). The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Krishan Kumar-father of the deceased Smt. Poonam. It is alleged by the complainant that the marriage of his daughter Poonam (deceased) was solemnized with Satish (non-applicant) on 19.2.2006. He had given dowry according to his status. His son-in-law Satish (non-applicant), father-in-law Rajender (petitioner) and mother-in-law Sheela (non-applicant) were not satisfied with the dowry and they have been harassing his daughter to get more dowry. Satish repeatedly harassed Poonam to bring a car besides the mother-in-law Sheela and father-in-law Rajender (petitioner) were taunting Poonam that she belonged to a poor family and should die after consuming poison. The complainant told his elder brother Raj Kumar about this. They visited the place of the petitioner many times to make them understand but they did not mend their way. On 14.6.2009, Satish informed the complainant on telephone that they were not fulfilling the demands of dowry and they should take their daughter from this place, otherwise it would not be proper. After some time their son-in-law again made a telephone call that his daughter Poonam had consumed sulphos tablets and she was admitted in Balajee Hospital, Panipat. The complainant reached Balajee Hospital and found the condition of his daughter to be serious. They took her to Jaipur Golden Hospital at Delhi where she died during treatment. Therefore, it is alleged that the husband and the parents-in-law of Poonam were responsible for the death of Poonam. As per the FSL Cr. Misc. No.M-32961 of 2009 [3] report, it has been opined by the Chemical Examiner, Government Haryana at Karnal that Aluminium Phosphide was found in the contents of a sealed bottle said to contain sample of stomach and also found in a sealed bottle containing sample of liver, spleen and kidney. Besides, blood contained in sealed bottle was found positive test for Phosphine. The husband of the deceased and his parents are in custody in the case. The petitioner is stated to be having a separate ration card (Annexure-P.2) which was issued on 8.2.2008 i.e. before the incident. It is stated that he was separate in kitchen and mess from his son, daughter-in- law and their minor son who were residing in a part of the same house in Village Nangal Kheri, Panipat, however, they were separate in mess. Indeed ration card dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure-P.2) and ration card dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure-P.3) show that the family of the petitioner is separate from that of his son and daughter-in-law. Besides, the petitioner is working in the National Fertilizers Limited and on the date of incident i.e. on 14.6.2009 it has been certified by the Senior Manager (P&A) of National Fertilizers Limited that the petitioner was present in the first half of morning shift on 14.6.2009 i.e. from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. After that, there has been no information regarding his absence till date. Therefore, at the time of incident the petitioner is not stated to be present at home. The petitioner is in custody since 22.6.2009. His son and his wife are already in custody. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the petitioner during the trial of the case is admitted to bail. Accordingly, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat shall be admitted to bail. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an Cr. Misc. No.M-32961 of 2009 [4] expression of opinion on the merits of the case. April 19, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*