Criminal Misc. -M No. 29948 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 29948 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.10.2011 Shana Ram and others .. Petitioners vs State of Haryana .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 143 dated 8.10.2010 registered under Section 304-B IPC with Police Station Industrial Area, Saha, District Ambala, who have been summoned to face trial on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are parents and widow sister of the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during inquiry, the petitioners were found to be innocent. Challan was presented only against the husband. In fact, it was a case of suicide as the deceased had consumed poison. Merely on the statement of the complainant in the court, which was nothing else but version got recorded by him before the police that the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. The investigation of the case is already complete. They are not required to be taken into custody. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the police does not require the custody of the petitioners as investigation of the case is already complete. Criminal Misc. -M No. 29948 of 2011 (2) Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioners as well as the deceased and her husband were living in the same compound though they have separate ration cards. The deceased was forced to consume poison as there were injury marks on her body. The story regarding the mobile being used by the deceased to be in touch with a boy belonging to her village was projected by the accused party nearly one month after her death. There is no recovery of mobile phone or the sim card. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, and that the petitioners were found innocent during investigation and they have now been summoned to face trial on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording of the statement of the complainant in the court, in my opinion, they are not required to be taken into custody at present. They shall appear before the court below on the date already fixed i.e. 24.10.2011 and furnish their bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of. 19.10.2011 (Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge