Crl. Misc. No.M-19062 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-19062 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 04.07.2011 Manpreet Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. D.S. Sidhu and Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocates for the complainant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Petitioners in the present case are the husband and parents-in- law of the deceased-wife of petitioner No.1, who died at her parents’ resi- dence on account of consuming poison. The FIR was registered on the com- plaint of the brother of the deceased initially under Section 304-B IPC but later on was converted into under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 120-B IPC. Prayer in the present petition is for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the FIR it is stated that eight months before the death of wife of petitioner No.1, she was allegedly administered poison, while living with him. Then she was taken by her parents and died at their residence. This cannot be the after ef- fect of the poison allegedly administered to her eight months earlier. It is not possible as none would survive more than two hours after being admin- istered poison. As per the FIR marriage was solemnized less than seven years back, which is incorrect as it was solemnized on 24.11.2003 whereas the al- leged incident occurred on 21.12.2010. Crl. Misc. No.M-19062 of 2011 2 There is no history of ill-treatment. In fact, earlier also in 2004 the deceased had consumed poison for which she was got admitted in hospi- tal and treated. The allegations regarding demand of dowry are totally false as there is no material on record to prove that except the bald statement of the complainant and other family members. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, submitted that on inquiry by Superintendent of Police, Abohar it was found that offence under Section 304-B was not made out whereas it was a case under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 120-B IPC. It was so opined by the Deputy District Attorney, Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it is a case of unnatural death within seven years of marriage. However, he was unable to give any specific date of marriage. He further submitted that the allega- tion regarding demand of dowry was clearly made out and it was so found by the Investigating Officer on the basis of statements of the complainant and other family members. He further submitted that in 2004 as well the de- ceased was administered poison by the petitioners, however, she could be saved when admitted in hospital. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pa- perbook. It is undisputed that the deceased was at her parents’ house when she died on 21.12.2010 for the last eight months. It is alleged that she died on account of consumption of poison, which was allegedly adminis- tered by the petitioners eight months prior thereto when she was living with them. There is no material referred to at the time of hearing showing any in- stigation immediately before the death of the wife of petitioner No.1. The allegation regarding demand of dowry is supported only by oral statements of the complainant and other family members without corroborative evi- dence regarding harassment. Regarding consumption of poison in 2004, learned counsel for the State had pointed out that at that time, father-in-law of the deceased, namely, petitioner No.2 had got her admitted in the hospi- tal. There is no material showing any dispute between the parties subse- quent thereto. Crl. Misc. No.M-19062 of 2011 3 Considering the aforesaid facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, in my opinion, the petitioners deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. They shall be bound by all the conditions as contended under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 04.07.2011 sharmila