IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1584 of 2009 Date of decision : July 24, 2009 Savita ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana with Mr. Kunal Chhokar, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Savita has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 106 dated 15.6.2007, under sections 120-B, 201, 302 and 364 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Sonepat, District Sonepat. Savita is wife of deceased Parveen. Their marriage was solemnized on 10.12.2006. The occurrence took place on the night of 14/15-6-2007. Even before the marriage, threatening call was received on 5.12.2006 on the telephone of Surender complainant, brother of the deceased. Similar call was also received on the date of marriage threatening that the marriage should not be solemnized. After the marriage also, the petitioner had been receiving telephone calls. Her family members were called and the petitioner disclosed in their presence that co- accused Vikas had been calling her on telephone. On 14.6.2007, in the Criminal Misc. No. M-1584 of 2009 -2- morning three telephone calls were received on landline telephone of the complainant. The same were attended by complainant's mother. The caller told that the job had been done. Petitioner was at her parental home for a week before the occurrence. She made telephone call to the deceased at about 7.30 PM on 14.6.2007. Immediately thereafter the deceased left in Maruti car. He was found dead next morning in the said car. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. It has come during the investigation that the petitioner and her co-accused Vikas, Sonu and Rakesh were seen with the deceased on 14.6.2007 in the evening taking liquor. There are many circumstances against the petitioner. Even after her marriage with the deceased, she was receiving telephone calls from her co-accused Vikas. The deceased was murdered just six months after his marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner was allegedly having affair with Vikas co-accused and therefore, the deceased husband of the petitioner was allegedly murdered. Telephone calls were made to deceased by the petitioner as well as by Vikas. Last telephone call was made by the petitioner and thereupon the deceased went to meet her and never came back. The petitioner and her co-accused were last seen with the deceased. The petitioner also had the motive. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, I do not find it to be a fit case for releasing the petitioner on bail. Bail petition is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 24, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'