Crl.M.No.M-14489 of 2009 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-14489 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9.7.2009 Kavita and another ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.DAG Haryana. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) The petitioners filed the present application for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.60 dated 21.4.2009 under Sections 304- B, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station GRPS, Hisar. The deceased (Kanta) got married to Sham Sunder on 25.8.2008. The averments made in the FIR, registered by Satbir (father of the deceased) are that only after 19 days of the marriage he received a phone call from his daughter that her father-in-law, her husband and sister-in-law Kavita are not satisfied with the dowry, therefore, they are taunting and threatening her for demand of motor cycle. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the deceased was beaten by the aforesaid accused persons as a result of which her leg was fractured. On the assurance given by the husband and father-in-law, the girl was again sent but after 4-5 days, the father of the deceased was told on phone that aforesaid persons again gave beatings to her as a result of which Kanta Crl.M.No.M-14489 of 2009 -2 - committed suicide on 13.3.2009. The petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide bail application No.81-2009 but it was dismissed on 15.5.2009 which led to the filing of the present bail application in which notice of motion was issued on 25.5.2009 and on 4.6.2009 arrest of the petitioners was stayed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 4.6.2009, petitioner Kavita has joined the investigation. He further submits that present FIR No.60 dated 21.4.2009 is a counter-blast to the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.No.10462-M of 2009 on 20.4.2009. He further submits that petitioner Kavita is unmarried sister of the husband whereas petitioner No.2 father-in-law is an aged person. As against this, counsel for the State has argued that at the time when body was recovered from the railway track where Kanta had committed suicide, a copy was found containing a suicide note in which deceased had levelled specific allegations against her 5 sisters-in-law including petitioner No.1. Counsel for the State has further argued that role of the petitioner No.2 is otherwise writ large in the FIR. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and the fact that atrocities on the deceased had started just after 19 days of the marriage which ultimately forced her to take her life within 7 months of the marriage, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 9.7.2009 JUDGE Meenu