Crl. Misc. No. M-24886 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24886 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.09.2010 Teja Singh ...Petitioner versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Sant pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Having exercised his right of bail and lost before Sessions Judge, Petitioner-Teja Singh has filed the present application for regular bail in a case registered against him along with his co-accused, namely, Amrik Singh (husband), Ranjit Kaur (mother in law), Sukchain Singh and Paramjit Kaur, vide FIR No. 07 dated 15.04.2010 on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot. 2. The prosecution claimed that marriage of Kuldeep Kaur was solemnized with Amrik Singh son of the petitioner three years back. The complainant was stated to have given sufficient dowry articles at the time of the marriage of her daughter but the accused were not satisfied with the same. It was claimed that after one year of the marriage, they started harassing her on account of bringing lesser dowry and cash. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution that the deceased Kuldeep Kaur @ Charanjit Kaur died un-natural death, within seven years of her marriage and the accused treated her with cruelty, on account of Crl. Misc. No. M-24886 of 2010 -2- and in connection with demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Balvir Singh, father of the deceased, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner indicated here-in- above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail. 6. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner, who is father in law of the deceased, was arrested on 16.04.2010 and since then he is in custody. He is no longer required to be detained in judicial custody for any purpose. The allegations against the petitioner are general in nature. Originally the case was registered against Sukchain Singh and Paramjit Kaur, but during the course of investigation they were found innocent and the police did not challan them. The main allegations are against the husband with regard to the demand of dowry articles, who was arrested and still in judicial custody. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate or in his absence, Duty Magistrate, Faridkot. 9. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge September 15, 2010 naresh.k