CRM No. M-23793 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-23793 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.9.2009 Vidhya Watti ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar, vide FIR No.211 dated 3rd June, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has no role to play in the commission of crime as her son and daughter-in-law (deceased) were having a separate kitchen. The petitioner had thus no interference in day-to-day affairs of the couple. According to the counsel, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused only because she is mother-in-law of the deceased. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The FIR was lodged by Swarna Rani, mother of the deceased. She alleged in the FIR that her daughter was harassed by her CRM No. M-23793 of 2009 2 mother-in-law Vidya Devi. The harassment was meted out to her for bringing less dowry. According to the complainant, her son-in-law rang her up and told that she should take her daughter back. He also stated that he wanted to divorce her. At this, complainant's family pleaded with the husband's family that they could not give more dowry due to their financial condition. On the fateful day at about 11.30 P.M. complainant's family was informed that their daughter had died. So, they proceeded to the house of in-laws where they saw the dead-body of their daughter lying in a room with some scars on her throat. The complainant thus left her husband near the body of her daughter and went to the police for lodging the instant FIR. A perusal of the FIR shows that clear cut allegations have been levelled against the petitioner therein for harassing her daughter- in-law for demand of dowry. Due to persistent demands made by the petitioner and her co-accused, their daughter-in-law died on 3rd June, 2008. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and specific role attributed to the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case for grant of concession of pre-arrest bail to her. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 10, 2009 'rajpal'