Criminal Misc. No. M-29554 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29554 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.11.2009 Lilo Devi alias Lilawati .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Hemant Hassi, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 107 dated 22.8.2009, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station, Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the alleged occurrence took place on 26.7.2009, the FIR was registered after a delay of nearly one month on 22.8.2009. Admittedly, the complainant was discharged from the hospital on the very next day. The falsity of the story projected in the FIR is evident from the fact that two of the accused named therein were found to be innocent during investigation. The petitioner is a widow of about 60 years of age. In fact, the son of the petitioner and the complainant were residing at Mumbai and Chhatisgarh earlier and had recently shifted to the village. The petitioner had nothing to do with their domestic affairs. Even otherwise, the injuries on the person of the complainant were superficial burn injuries, which can very well be self inflicted considering the places where the injuries are. The son of the petitioner has been arrested and recovery of dowry articles have been made and he is in custody. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State and the complainant submitted that the petitioner is actively involved in the alleged occurrence. Attempt was to set the complainant on fire. It was per chance that she was saved. There was regular demand of dowry and the complainant was being harassed by Criminal Misc. No. M-29554 of 2009 [2] the petitioner and other family members. At the time of hearing, on a query by the court, learned counsel for the State stated that neither the burnt clothes of the complainant were taken into possession nor it was verified as to from which telephone a call was allegedly made by the son of the petitioner to the father of the complainant demanding money. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner herein certainly deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail as from the facts placed before this court at the time of hearing, this court is prima facie of the view that if a person is set on fire by putting kerosene on her, the injuries will not be only at the places at which the complainant has suffered. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner is sought to be arrested, she shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. She shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Nothing observed above shall be considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy which shall be considered by the trial court on merits on the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.11.2009 mk