CRM-M-25843 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-25843 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.10.2011 Surinder Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with, Mr.Vijay Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr.S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No.80 dated 3.7.2010 under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga. The petitioner is in custody since 25.9.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by this Court in CRM-M-20982 of 2011 titled as Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 4.8.2011. He also submits that as per the allegations in the FIR Rajbir Kaur (since deceased) was taken away by her father three months prior to her death to his own house. He has alleged that when she was in her in-laws house, she was given something in the curd because of which her health started deteriorating and ultimately she died after three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the cause of death has been found to be chloro-compound and as per the opinion of the Doctor the chloro-compound can cause death within 24 hours. Thus, he submits that the story coined by the CRM-M-25843 of 2011 - 2 - complainant cannot be believed inasmuch as to detain the petitioner in custody any longer. Learned counsel for the complainant in order to oppose the bail application has submitted that though the allegations made in the FIR are that the petitioner was given something which has not been found to be poisonous and she had died after three months at the house of her father yet the allegation of demand of dowry and unnatural death are sufficient for a case to be registered under Section 304-B IPC. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observations on the merit of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves concession of bail and hence, the bail application of the petitioner is allowed and he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 12, 2011 JUDGE Vivek