In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 26417 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on Sept 13,2011 Omi Devi --Petitioner vs. The State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. A.K.Bishnoi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) The petitioner has prayed for pre arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.154 dated 05.8.2011, under Sections 376,506,406,34,120-B IPC at Police Station City Narwana, District Jind. It is alleged by the complainant Kusum Lata that her marriage was solemnised with Anil on 05.10.2008 but unfortunately, her husband who was Captain in the Indian Army died in an accident after 8 months of the marriage. The complainant was asked to stay back in her matrimonial home by the petitioner and other members of her family where Aman (non- applicant) who happens to be the brother of the deceased husband committed rape with her. When she disclosed the incident of rape to the petitioner, she assured her that they would perform her marriage with Aman. As such, she started living with Aman as his wife but without marriage. During this period, the petitioner and other family members had snatched `40 to 42 lacs which she had got after the death of her husband and once they were successful in taking the money, she was reduced to live the life of a maid servant. CRM-M- 46417 of 2011 -2- Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner had applied for bail before the Court below which was dismissed on 20.8.2011. inter-alia, on the ground of criminal breach of trust as the gold ornaments of the complainant and the money amounting to `25 lacs was taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that she has been falsely implicated in this case. He has placed on record some sale deeds to show that the land has been purchased in the name of the complainant from the money received on account of death of her husband. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record from which I have found that the sale deeds are only of `3,75,000/- whereas the allegation is that a sum of `25 lacs has been taken from her and misappropriated. Moreover, the allegation is that the gold ornaments of the complainant are with the petitioner which have not been returned who has been continuously cheating her and made to live with the other son of the petitioner without her remarriage. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and hence the same is hereby dismissed. Sept 13,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge