Criminal Misc.-M No. 25060 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 25060 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.9.2011 Nazar Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. O. S. Batalvi, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are parents-in-law of the deceased. The son of the petitioners, namely, husband of the deceased has already been arrested. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of father of the deceased. The initial complaint to the police is dated 16.4.2011 alleging that marriage of the daughter of the complainant was solemnised with the son of the petitioners about four years back. After marriage, no child was born out of the wedlock. The son-in-law of the complainant, i.e., son of the petitioners, was a drug addict and for that reason even the petitioners had disinherited their son and daughter-in-law from the property, though they were living in the same house. The complainant came to know that his daughter was suffering from typhoid as a telephone call was received by his nephew, namely, Manpreet Singh on 15.4.2011 at 11.30 PM. However, a subsequent call was received by him informing that his daughter had died. A DDR was registered by the police initially as the apprehension of the complainant was that merely with typhoid, one cannot die so early. The police got the post-mortem of the deceased conducted. Criminal Misc.-M No. 25060 of 2011 [2] After the report of Chemical Examiner was received, the FIR in question was registered. As per the Chemical Examiner's report, chlorocompound insecticide was detected in the viscera. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that either in the initial complaint filed to the police on the basis of which DDR was registered or even in the subsequent complaint after the receipt of chemical examiner's report, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. The FIR was registered against unknown persons. In fact, the petitioners had already disinherited their son as well as daughter-in-law considering the fact that the son had become drug addict though he was living in the same house. There is no previous history of any harassment to the daughter-in-law for demand of any dowry or otherwise as nothing has been referred to in the complaint to the police, which was filed initially. However, in the application filed subsequent to the receipt of chemical examiner's report, there are certain allegations regarding demand of dowry. Even in that complaint, no specific allegation has been made against the petitioners. The persons, before whom extra-judicial confessions were allegedly made by the accused, belong to the village of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that after post-mortem of the deceased was got conducted and it was found that viscera contained chlorocompound insecticide, the FIR was registered. Statements of Pritam Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Ajaib Singh, Resham Singh and Jarnail Singh were recorded on 22.7.2011, who stated that the petitioners and their son had confessed before them that they had done a mistake by killing the daughter of the complainant by administering poison to her. Their help was sought for compromise in the matter. This itself is sufficient to show involvement of the petitioners in the crime. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the initial complaint filed by the father of the deceased itself shows that he admitted strained relationship between the petitioners and their son, namely, husband of the deceased daughter of the complainant. It is stated by him that his son-in-law had become drug addict Criminal Misc.-M No. 25060 of 2011 [3] and on this account, he was disinherited from the family along with his daughter. It is also a fact mentioned therein that no child was born out of the wedlock, though the marriage was 4 years old. Even in the complaint subsequently filed on 8.6.2011, it is stated that on enquiry it was found that daughter of the complainant had died due to carelessness as proper medical treatment was not given to her. They were not informed about her illness. It is further stated therein that before death, demand of ` 2,00,000/- was made for running the workshop due to which his daughter used to live in tension. There is no history of any earlier harassment. It is not in dispute that son of the petitioners, namely, husband of the deceased has already been arrested and is in custody. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. They are directed to appear before Investigating Officer on 15.9.2011 at 10.00 AM for joining investigation. In case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.9.2011 mk