Crl. Misc. No. M-33490 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33490 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 11.1.2010 Jeeto Bai & Ors. ..........Petitioners Versus Makhan Singh & Anr. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. SK Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in a complaint case titled as Makhan Singh Vs. Jeeto Bai & Others registered under Sections 302/201/465/471/467/148/149 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case and they have been summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel further contends that Chiman Lal @ Chiman Singh was suffering from renal problem and he died his natural death on 17.9.2005. The present complaint has been filed just to grab the property of deceased-Chiman Lal @ Chiman Singh and to Crl. Misc. No. M-33490 of 2009 (2) harass the present petitioners. Learned counsel also relied upon the medical certificates dated 17.1.2003 and 25.5.2005 to support his contention. There is no evidence on record to connect the present petitioners with the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy to grab the land of Chiman Lal @ Chiman Singh and killed him. His dead body was cremated without conducting postmortem examination just to destroy evidence. Counsel for the complainant further contends that immediately after the death of deceased-Chiman Lal @ Chiman Singh, the petitioners mutated the property in their own names. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the complaint. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chiman Lal @ Chiman Singh died his natural death on account of renal failure, is not believable. The aforesaid two certificates are dated 17.1.2003 and 25.5.2005, whereas, Chiman Lal @ Chiman Singh died on 17.9.2005. From the aforesaid two certificates, no final conclusion can be drawn with regard to immediate cause of death of the deceased. Keeping in view the gravity of offences and the fact that there are serious allegations against the petitioners, this is not a fit case where concession of anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. January 11, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No Crl. Misc. No. M-33490 of 2009 (3)