CRM No.M-26439 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-27.9.2010 Kailasho Devi and Mamta ...Petitioners Versus State of UT Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Karam Vir Nanda Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Ashima Mor, Standing Counsel for UT Chandigarh. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioners Kailasho Devi wife of Jaswant Singh and her daughter Mamta have directed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.159 dated 6.8.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, according to the prosecution that the petitioners quarreled with the deceased and threatened her with dire consequences, in case they did not vacate the tenanted premises. In all, the prosecution claimed that on 6.8.2010 Shakuntla (deceased) committed suicide and the petitioners abetted the commission of crime. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Manoj Kumar Sharma, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner described here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the CRM No.M-26439 of 2010 2 entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be allowed in this context. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners were arrested on 6.8.2010 and since then they are in judicial custody. They are no longer required for further detention in jail. Whether from the facts and circumstances of the case, the penal provisions of section 306 IPC would be attracted, will be the moot point, to be decided at the time of trial. Petitioner No.2 is the daughter of petitioner No.1. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. As even the police did not file the final police report under section 173 Cr.PC, therefore, the conclusion of the trial will naturally take long time. Moreover, the law of bail is liberal towards women. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons 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 petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate or in his absence the Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 27.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge