IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-20679 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2010 Shyam Bai .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Jagat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.182 dated 20.6.2009 under sections 302/307/34 IPC at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani. The FIR was registered on the statement made by deceased Usha. She stated that on 29.4.2009 at about 3.00 P.M., she was abused by her husband Sumer. Out of fear, she came out, but was stopped by her mother-in-law. Her husband thereafter sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. After she raised alarm, she was taken to hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in her earlier statement, the deceased had stated before the doctor that she had caught fire accidentally. The second statement made by her was tutored one and thus, same cannot be believed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Crl.Misc.No.M-20679 of 2010 - 2 - It is evident that allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. At the time of occurrence, when husband of deceased Usha was carrying kerosene oil in a container, she was not only present, but participated in the commission of crime. As per allegation, she stood in the way of the deceased while her son poured kerosene oil on her (deceased). It is, thus, clear that petitioner actively participated in the commission of crime. As regards previous statement of the deceased to the effect that she caught fire accidentally, same has no relevance. In the statement made later, the deceased explained that she was threatened by petitioner and co- accused (husband) not to give any statement against them. This apart, she wanted to save her son and daughter from any harm. Thus, she had not given the correct picture in her earlier statement. Keeping in view the magnitude of crime, gravity of offence and punishment which would entail in case of conviction, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail during the pendency of the trial. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. July 21, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2