CRM-M-26718 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-26718 of 2011 Date of Decision:09.11.2011 Hans Raj alias Hansa and another . . .Petitioners Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No.62 dated 4.3.2011 under Sections 498-A, 307 & 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Old Faridabad, District Faridabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 20.2.2011 whereas the deceased had made a statement on the very next day i.e. on 21.2.2011 to the Investigating Officer in the presence of Shiv Charan s/o Late Chuni Lal (independent witness) and at that time she did not name anyone about the alleged occurrence rather it was alleged that she had suffered injuries accidentally due to fire. He further submits that the deceased recorded another statement on 4.3.2011 after about 11 days of the first statement and in that statement she had named not only the petitioners but others also who alleged to have set her at fire. He submits that in that statement she had also even named cousin brother-in-law namely Rahul. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the said Rahul has even been granted anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge and the other co-accused namely, Ram Singh, CRM-M-26718 of 2011 - 2 - Goverdhan, Mukesh and Raghubir have also been granted anticipatory bail. He further submits that it is yet to be ascertained that which statement of the deceased was genuine. The petitioners are stated to be the parents of the husband, who are in custody from 8.4.2011 whereas challan in this case has already been presented and the charges have been framed. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the bail application alleging that though first statement dated 21.2.2011 is part of challan and in that the statement, petitioners are not named but in the second statement names of the persons are specifically mentioned, who had tried to kill the deceased. He has also submitted that after making the said statement on 22.2.2011 the deceased had expired on 5.3.2011 as she had suffered 95% burn injuries. After hearing both learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the petitioners deserve concession of bail in this case. Hence, without making any observation on the merits, the present petition is allowed. Petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 09, 2011 JUDGE Vivek