IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 28873 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 5, 2010. Mandeep Singh @Babli and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. D.S.Malwai, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.111 dated 02.09.2010, under Sections 306/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. CRM No.M-28873 of 2010 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are brother-in-law and parents-in-law of the deceased. Further contends that they are having no concern with the married life of the deceased and her husband. Further contended that they are having separate kitchen and ration card. Further contended that the marriage of deceased with son of petitioners No.2 and 3 was solemnized about 12 years before this occurrence and that as per first version given by brother of the deceased it was a case of taking poisonous substance by his sister by accident and matter was also compromised and some land was also transferred in the name of son of the deceased. Further contends that later on mother of deceased got this FIR lodged at the instance of Gulzar Singh by making vague and general allegations. Further contends that husband of deceased has already been arrested in this case. All these facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. It has been stated that it came during investigation that deceased alongwith her husband was having separate kitchen and having separate ration card though they were residing in separate portion of the same house in which petitioners were residing. It is also stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners are not required for any custodial interrogation and that they be directed to join the investigation. However, bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of 2 CRM No.M-28873 of 2010 Mandeep Singh @Babli, Shinder Pal Singh and Bachan Kaur @Jaswinder Kaur is accepted. Petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 5, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3