CRM No.M-20281 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-1.10.2010 Joginder Singh son of Ronqi Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Preetinder S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Joginder Singh son of Ronqi Singh, has directed the present petition for regular bail, in a case registered against him, alongwith his other co- accused, namely, Rajinder Singh (husband), Raghbir Singh alias Golu (brother-in- law), Rani (sister-in-law) and Chhinder Kaur (mother-in-law), vide FIR No.287 dated 20.6.2009, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and 316 read with section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar Patiala, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, according to the prosecution that the marriage of Meenu Kumari, daughter of Raja Singh complainant, was solemnized with Rajinder Singh accused 1½ years prior to the present occurrence. Soon after the marriage, all the accused started harassing her. On 20.6.2009, Meenu Kumari committed suicide and it was alleged that all the accused are responsible for abetting the crime. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and in all, the prosecution claimed that Meenu Kumari died an unnatural death within the seven years of the marriage and soon before her death, all the accused treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of Raja Singh complainant, the present case was CRM No.M-20281 of 2010 2 registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. It is not a matter of dispute that Raghbir Singh alias Golu and Rani, co-accused of the present petitioner, have already been allowed regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), vide orders dated 19.2.2010 and 29.6.2010 in CRM Nos.M-1683 and 10478 of 2010 respectively. Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit to the present petitioner under the same set of circumstances. The petitioner was arrested on 23.6.2009 and since then he is in judicial custody. Since only one PW has been examined by the prosecution, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. All the main allegations of cruelty are against the husband, who is not petitioner before this Court. No specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. No useful purpose will be served to further detain him in jail. 7. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 9. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 1.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge