In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM.M 14601 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on Aug 07,2009. Amarjit Kaur and another -- Petitioners vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. Present: Mr.GPS Bal, Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat,AAG,Punjab, for the State/respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.44 dated 19.2.2008 under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. at Police Station, Kharar, but subsequently, on the death of Sapinder Kaur @ Maninder Kaur, the offence under Section 302 IPC was also added. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter-alia, argued that petitioner No.1, who is mother-in-law and petitioner No.2, who is brother- in-law of the deceased, were found innocent by the Investigating Agency and were placed in column No.2. He further submits that insofar as husband of the deceased is concerned, he is in judicial custody. However, vide order dated 25.5.2009 (Annexure P-3), the petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. through arrest warrants. He further submits that in terms of the order dated 5.6.2009, passed by this Court, the petitioner have appeared before the trial Court and have been released on interim bail. CRM M14601 of 2009 (O&M) -2- As against this, learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioners are involved in heinous crime as the deceased in her dying declaration has stated that though she had herself poured kerosene oil but her husband Manpreet Singh had set her on fire and at that time, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had caught her from her arms. This dying declaration bears the thumb impression of the deceased which has been witnessed by Harpreet Kaur, Naib Tehsildar, Kharar and Dr.Jaspreet Kaur, EMO Cheema Hospital, Phase-I, Mohali. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the seriousness of the offence in which both the petitioners have participated to the extent that they were present at the time of occurrence and had caught hold of the arms of the deceased, may be for the purpose that she may not run away or save herself, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail . Hence, the bail petition is hereby dismissed. Aug 07,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge