In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM M 18133 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on July 21,2009. Nachhattar Kaur -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Partap Singh,Sr.DAG,Haryana. Mr.B.S.Sewak, Advocate, for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in a case FIR No.145 dated 15.5.2009, registered under Sections 302/201/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Ambala City, pursuant to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, dated 11.5.2009, on an application filed by Jarnail Kaur widow of Mohinder Singh (deceased) under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide his order dated 15.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, submits that there is a civil litigation between the husband of the petitioner and the deceased, therefore, she has been unnecessary dragged in the present case. It is further contended that the deceased was dismissed from service due to embezzlement of the amount of Jatwar Cooperative Credit & Service Society, where he was working as Branch Manager. There were other CRM M 18133 of 2009 -2- cases pending against the deceased in respect of embezzlement. It is also submitted that cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning and no mark of injury has been detected in the post mortem report. Therefore, it is a case of suicide. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the civil suit filed by the husband of the petitioner was admittedly dismissed. The prosecution has found ample evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime as they were the persons who were last seen in the company of the deceased. Thus, it was submitted that at this stage, anticipatory bail should not be granted to the petitioner as it may hamper the investigation which pertains to a heinous crime. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant concession of anticipatory bail as no one out of the accused named in the FIR has been arrested. This case requires custodial interrogation. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. July 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge