Crl. Misc. No.M-4779 of 2010 Gulshan Kumar versus State of Haryana Present: Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C.Gupta, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in case registered against him in FIR No.183 dated 09.08.2009 for the offence under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. The FIR in this case has been lodged on the statement of Nand Lal. The daughter of the complainant – Nand Lal namely Anu Rani was married to Parveen Kumar on 14.04.2008. The complainant alleges that dowry in the marriage was given according to his social standing. Whenever his daughter used to visit him, she used to complain that her in-laws were troubling her for more dowry. The mother, uncle and aunt of Parveen Kumar (husband of the deceased) were saying that the daughter of the complainant belongs to a poor family and they were getting proposals from many rich homes. The petitioner is the unmarried younger brother of Parveen Kumar. It is alleged that the petitioner used to taunt Anu Rani all the time and that she does not take care of his house. Apart from this, there is no specific role attributed to the petitioner. Anu Rani died on 09.08.2009 due to throttling. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the earlier application for bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.12.2009. The father of the petitioner namely Ram Chander has been granted bail vide order dated 14.01.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. It is further stated that the Crl. Misc. No.M-4779 of 2010 -2- petitioner is placed in the column No.2 of the challan and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. In response thereto, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner had admitted his guilt in his disclosure statement which was recorded by the police on 12.03.2009. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration on the matter, it may be noticed that according to the prosecution Anu Rani died due to throttling. She was married with Parveen Kumar on 14.04.2008. She died in her matrimonial home. Parveen Kumar and Anu Rani-deceased were residing separately. The incident in this case occurred on 09.08.2009. The wire that was used for strangulating her was recovered from Parveen Kumar. The question that the petitioner in his disclosure statement has admitted his guilt, is not to be considered at this stage. The effect of the disclosure statement is to be ascertained and considered after evidence is lead. At this stage, it would be improper to go into the said aspect. It may also be noticed that other co-accused i.e. the mother, uncle and aunt of the petitioner were kept in column No.II of the challan filed by the police. The husband of the deceased is in custody. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Crl. Misc. is allowed and the petitioner on furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad shall be admitted to bail. March 31, 2010 (S.S.SARON) sonia JUDGE