Criminal Misc.No. M- 17235 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M- 17235 of 2010 Date of decision:- 22.7.2010 Charan Singh Thakur ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. K.V. Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, DAG Haryana. Mr. Rishi Pal Rana, Advocate for the complainant. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.149 dated 17.5.2010, under Sections 304-B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 11.6.2010, passed the following order:- “ In the present case, FIR has been registered for an offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC in respect of death of one Rajni wife of Parminder Singh @ Pammi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not a Criminal Misc.No. M- 17235 of 2010 -2- relative of Rajni, therefore, he cannot be arrested for an offence under Section 304-B IPC. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State states that the present petitioner was living with the father-in-law of deceased Rajni namely Daya Ram, therefore, he is the person who falls within the scope of Section 304-B IPC. Learned counsel for the parties seek some time to examine the question; whether expression 'relative' appearing in Section 304-B IPC is restricted to relation by blood only? List again on 22.07.2010. In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, he shall be admitted to interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has joined the investigation in pursuance of the said order. Further contended that the petitioner is not related to husband of deceased and hence it cannot be said that petitioner has committed offence under Section 304-B IPC. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent- State that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 11.6.2010, granting interim bail to the petitioner-Charan Singh Thakur, is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Criminal Misc.No. M- 17235 of 2010 -3- Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. July 22, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDG