CRM-M-19791-2011 ::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19791-2011 Date of Decision:05.09.2011 Roop Chand ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. S.C.Sabharwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of regular bail in a pending trial case FIR No.78 dated 18.06.2009, initially registered under Section 302 IPC which has been now converted into 306 IPC by filing supplementary challan, at Police Station City, Fazilka, District Ferozepur. The FIR in this case has been registered on the statement of Bimla Rani who had alleged that she had four daughters, out of which deceased Seema Rani was married to the petitioner. She had alleged that after her marriage in the month of December, 2008, deceased Seema Rani was harassed by the members of her in-laws’ family by making demand for dowry. It is alleged that on 16.06.2009, her daughter had informed her on telephone that the members of her in-laws’ family, who have been named in the FIR, were asking for a sum of Rs.2 lacs. On that day, she received a telephonic call that Seema Rani has been killed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation, the challan was presented in this case only against the petitioner who is in custody since 09.07.2009. Lateron, on the supplementary statement of Bimla Rani, Khem Chand, father-in-law of the deceased Seema Rani, was roped in as an accused. The other members of the family of the petitioner were also sought to be summoned by the prosecution by moving an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but it was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, whereas the charge has been framed under Section 306 IPC. He has also brought to the notice of the Court [ 1 ] CRM-M-19791-2011 ::::::: that the prosecution has also moved an application for amendment of the charge from Section 306 IPC to Section 304-B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are 18 witnesses who are to be examined, whereas learned State Counsel submits that as per his instructions, there are only 13 witnesses who are to be examined but it is submitted that two material witnesses, namely, Bimla Rani and Subhash Chand, have already been examined. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a first offender as he is neither a previous convict nor any other case is pending against him. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, but without making any observation on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. September 05, 2011. ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge [ 2 ]