Criminal Misc. No. M-34874 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-34874 of 2011 Date of decision : December 05, 2011 Smt. Parkasho Devi and others ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. RS Mamli, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Parkasho Devi and her son Sachin and daughter Rajni have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 94 dated 7.9.2011, under sections 306/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Virender alias Rinku since deceased was married with Rajni petitioner no. 3 on 18.2.2011. On 6.8.2011, petitioner no. 2 Sachin had Criminal Misc. No. M-34874 of 2011 -2- taken petitioner no. 3 from matrimonial home to parental home. On 5.9.2011, Virender alias Rinku deceased went to the house of the petitioners to bring back petitioner no. 3 to matrimonial home. However, the petitioners refused to send petitioner no. 3 with the deceased because the petitioners and their co-accused Poonam (sister of petitioner no. 3) and Jasmer Singh (father of petitioner no. 3) were pressurising the deceased to sell their house and land in the village and to construct house in Urban area. On account of the same, the deceased committed suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the deceased had no land or house in his own name and the same was joint property of the deceased with his brother, mother and other family members. It was also submitted that Jasmer Singh has since been arrested and declined regular bail by Sessions Court whereas Poonam has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Petitioners cannot claim parity with Poonam because Poonam had been married more than six years before the marriage of the deceased with petitioner no. 3. Consequently, Poonam stood completely on different footing. Coming to the case of the present petitioners, in my considered opinion, petitioner no. 3 who is wife of the deceased does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail because she may be said to be the main accused who was pressurising the deceased to sell his property in the village. The contention that the deceased could not sell the property being in joint name of the deceased and other family members cannot be Criminal Misc. No. M-34874 of 2011 -3- accepted at this stage because the deceased could certainly sell his share in the joint property. However, petitioners no. 1 and 2 who are mother-in- law and brother-in-law respectively of the deceased should be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. All family members of in-laws of the deceased have been named as accused in the case. However, petitioner no. 3 being wife of the deceased would be the main contender to pressurise the deceased for sale of his rural property and to settle in Urban area. Keeping in view the aforesaid but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail qua petitioner no. 3 Rajni is dismissed whereas the instant petition qua petitioners no. 1 and 2 Parkasho Devi and Sachin is allowed. In the event of arrest, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the conditions specified in section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. They shall join the investigation as and when required by the police. Presently, petitioners no. 1 and 2 are directed to join investigation on 15.12.2011 at 10.00 AM and continue to do so as and when required by the police. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 05, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'