Criminal Misc. No. M-12323 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12323 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.7.2011 Jagat Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 57 dated 16.3.2010, registered under Sections 304-B/34 IPC, Police Station, Pataudi. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner along with his parents had killed his wife by putting kerosene on her. The petitioner is in custody since 22.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no history of harassment indicated in the FIR and especially prior to the death of the wife of the petitioner on the basis of which offence under Section 304-B IPC could be attracted. The allegations in the FIR are quite general. Father of the petitioner has been released on regular bail, whereas mother was granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that subsequent to the registration of FIR, statements of brother and another uncle of the deceased were recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C., wherein they stated that ever since the marriage of the parties took place, the deceased was being harassed for dowry and a few days back, the petitioner had come to their residence and ` 1,00,000/- were given to him. No specific instance of harassment has been referred to. Father of the deceased Criminal Misc. No. M-12323 of 2011 [2] is serving in BSF. However, the fact remains that the complaint on the basis of which the FIR has been registered was lodged by one of the uncles of the deceased. It is stated that though the brothers are living separate but in the adjoining houses. There are no allegations in the FIR regarding giving of money to the petitioner. The father of the deceased has not yet come in picture. Out of 20 prosecution witnesses, statements of only three witnesses have been recorded. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegations in the FIR and other material, as pointed out at the time of hearing, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail pending trial. Let the petitioner be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Gurgaon. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.7.2011 mk