Crl. Misc. No. M-28590 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-28590 of 2009 Date of Decision : October 21, 2009 Karnail Kaur @ Chhoti Kaur .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. P. S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Karnail Kaur @ Chhoti Kaur has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.106 dated 13.09.2008, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Ram Singh lodged FIR against the petitioner and her son Bahal Singh alleging that complainant's sister Bhajan Kaur was married with Bahal Singh about 15 years before her death. The petitioner and her son Bahal Singh had both been harassing Bhajan Kaur forcing her to commit suicide. There was also allegation that at the time of bhog ceremony of father-in-law of the deceased, demand of a gold kara was made by the Crl. Misc. No. M-28590 of 2009 2 petitioner. The petitioner and her son did not allow the deceased to visit her parental home and also did not allow the parental family members of the deceased to visit her in matrimonial home. The petitioner was found innocent by the police and only Bahal Singh was challaned. However, the petitioner has been summoned as additional accused on prosecution application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was residing separately from the deceased and her husband. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurcharan Singh, contended that the petitioner along with her other son was residing in the same house in which the deceased and her husband were residing, although separately. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that there is allegation of demand of gold kara only against the petitioner and the said demand was made about five years prior to commission of suicide by the deceased and therefore, there was no live link between the said demand and the commission of suicide. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. The same cannot be accepted at this stage because the allegation is not only about the demand of gold kara, but also there is allegation that both – the petitioner and her son had been continuously harassing the deceased, who was not even allowed to visit her parental family, nor any member of her parental family was allowed to visit her in the matrimonial home. Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the petitioner, in my opinion, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. October 21, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE