Crl. Misc. No. M-35865 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35865 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 14.12.2010 Palwinder Kaur ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Vijay Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 63722 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-35865 of 2010 The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Palwinder Kaur in case FIR No. 127 dated 28.7.2010 registered under Sections 304-B,307,498-A,34 IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is sister-in-law of the deceased and the deceased was suffering from mental illness. The petitioner has no role to play in the alleged occurrence. Moreover, the complainant, father of the deceased, has compromised the matter and filed an affidavit to this effect, which is annexed as Annexure P-2/T with the petition. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the Crl. Misc. No. M-35865 of 2010 (O&M) (2) petitioner and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on file. Admittedly, the petitioner is sister-in-law of the deceased and serious allegations are there against her. It has specifically been mentioned in the complaint made by the complainant that the petitioner was having illicit relations with the husband of the deceased. The deceased also made dying declaration before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala, wherein, it was specifically mentioned by her that the petitioner poured kerosone oil on her. The compromise effected by the complainant is of no consequences as all the offences are non-compoundable and the concession of anticipatory bail cannot granted in such like cases. In view of the conduct of the petitioner that she poured kerosene oil on the deceased, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments has held that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C., are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 Cr.P.C. as well. In addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437 Cr.P.C., the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Since the petitioner has actively participated in the alleged occurrence, concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to her. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. December 14, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-35865 of 2010 (O&M) (3) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No