CRM No.M -28154 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-15.10.2010 Ashwani Kumar Sharma and Prem Lata ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Hooda, Addl.AG Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Sessions Judge, petitioners Ashwani Kumar Sharma and his wife Prem Lata, unfortunate parents-in-law of complainant Monika Sharma, have filed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them and their son main accused namely, Sandeep Kumar Sharma, vide FIR No.205 dated 8.8.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 406, 420, 498-A and 506 read with section 34 IPC IPC by the police of Police Station City Tohana, Distt.Fatehabad, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that the petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant. Very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are alleged against them. No overt act or specific role is attributed to the petitioners. They are stated to be old persons of CRM No.M -28154 of 2010 2 above the age of 60 years. 5. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jai Singh, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from them. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any criminal case. All the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the present petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to state that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 9. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 15.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge