Crl.M. No. M- 25589 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M- 25589 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.10.2010 ... Maya Devi ................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab ... K.C. Puri, J. Maya Devi – petitioner has applied for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 16 dated 19.5.2010 under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur. The law was set in motion by recording the statement of Ashwani Kumar, who has stated that he is doctor by profession and doing his private practice. The marriage of his younger sister Rita Rani was solemnized with Vijay Kumar s/o Mohinder Singh on 18.2.2006. Out of the wedlock two children were born aged about 4 years and 2- ½ years. There used to be dispute between Rita Rani and family members of Vijay Kumar on which the deceased used to ask her husband to take her alongwith him at Jet Mill Chohal, where Vijay Kumar was posted. Even her husband used to refuse and gave beatings to Rita Rani. Earlier also about 3 years ago on application Crl.M. No. M- 25589 of 2010 -2- made by the deceased, the matter was compromised between the parties. However, still Vijay Kumar and his mother did not stop from maltreating the deceased. It is further stated that complainant alongwith respectables had talked with the accused and try to make him understand, but the behaviour and the cruelty did not change. Rita Rani committed suicide due to act of Vijay Kumar and Maya Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that main dispute was regarding taking away the deceased to Jet Mill Chohal, where Vijay Kumar was posted. It is further submitted that 2 children of deceased have to be looked after by the applicant. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there are general allegations. So, prayer has been made for grant of bail. The prayer has been opposed by the State counsel. It is submitted that there are specific allegations of maltreatment, so the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 19.5.2010. There are two tender age children which are to be looked after. It is alleged that no lady is there to look after them. The allegations are general in nature. So, without commenting upon the merits of the case, bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ( K.C. Puri ) 14.10.2010 Judge chugh