IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO. 1549 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 6.2.2009 Arvind ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate Mr. SS Goripuria, DAG, Hry Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners are elder and younger brothers of Arun, whose wife had died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. The deceased was 8 months pregnant at the time she died of burn injuries in the house of her in-laws. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are residing in separate portions of the house, which is an ancestral house. The said averment has been contradicted by the learned State counsel, on the basis of the investigation conducted and site plan of the house prepared. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the police file. There are specific allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty levelled against all the family members of Arun. The petitioners may have a good defence to rebut the presumption u/s 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act but the said circumstance may constitute a good ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Dismissed. Interim order dated 21.1.2009 stands vacated. Nothing said in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioners to get regular bail. February 6 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE