CRM-M-24913 of 2011 - 1 - CRM-M-26375 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-24913 of 2011 Date of Decision:11.11.2011 Baldev Kaur . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CRM-M-26375 of 2011 Date of Decision:11.11.2011 Dalbara Singh @ Bara . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.D.R. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr.A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing CRM-M-24913 of 2011 titled as “Baldev Kaur Vs. State of Punjab” (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ist petition’) and CRM-M-26375 of 2011 titled as “Dalbara Singh @ Bara Vs. State of Punjab” (hereinafter referred to as ‘IInd petition’). Ist petition is filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) whereas IInd petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after summoning of the petitioner in IInd petition on the application filed by the Prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that the deceased Veerpal Kaur (daughter of the complainant) was married to CRM-M-24913 of 2011 - 2 - CRM-M-26375 of 2011 Gurwinder Singh @ Bagga, who was son of the petitioners, in March 2004. Out of the wedlock, two children were born out of whom one is male child and other one is female. He submits that in the entire FIR, the allegations are precisely against the husband of the deceased that he has been unleashing atrocities on his wife while demanding dowry/gifts after the birth of the child. He further submits that petitioners have been arrayed only because of the reasons that they are the parents of the deceased and were available in the house. There is no allegation that they have also demanded any dowry or tortured the deceased. He further submits that the petitioner in the Ist petition is in custody since the date of registration of the FIR i.e. 22.8.2010 whereas the case is not making any headway because of the reasons that the application filed by the Prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner in the IInd petition has been summoned against which the he has preferred Criminal Revision No.1078 of 2011 which is pending in this Court and is fixed for 19.1.2012. As against this, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail as the offences are very heinous as the daughter of the complainant had died within seven years of her marriage. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that both the petitioners deserve concession of bail. Hence, in the Ist petition, bail is granted to the petitioner but without observing anything on merits of the case and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The IInd petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Court below on or before 22.11.2011 and on his furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction he shall be released on bail. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 11, 2011 JUDGE Vivek