Crl. Misc. No. M-12115 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12115 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 28.07.2010 Gurmit Singh @ Neeta ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Gurmit Singh @ Neeta for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 86 dated 2.8.2009 registered under Section 306,304-B/34 IPC at Police Station Sangat, District Bhatinda. In this case, notice of motion was issued on 28.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner as well as his entire family has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further contends that no specific allegation of demand of dowry is there in the FIR and only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused. No dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the prosecution. The petitioner is in custody since 3.8.2009 and no purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars, as challan has already been presented in Court. Learned counsel further submits that the trial will take some considerable time to conclude as in this case, there are 17 prosecution witnesses and the statement of the complainant has already been recorded by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble Crl. Misc. No. M-12115 of 2010 (2) the Apex Court in Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 133, of this Court in Anokh Singh Vs. Sukhdev Singh 1999 (1) RCR (Criminal) 92 and of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ram Kumar @ Khem Raj Vs. State of H.P. 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 792 in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are not only serious but specific also. As per statement of complainant-Jarnail Singh, father of the deceased, his daughter was being harassed from the very beginning and even on the day of occurrence a telephonic call was received to the effect that his daughter had been caught by fire and when he reached at the place of occurrence then he came to know that she has been burnt at the instance of the accused persons. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR. As per the contents of the FIR, the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific demand of dowry has been raised by him. The trial is in progress and material witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner is in custody only since 3.8.2009 and being the main accused, he is not entitled for the concession of bail. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present case, as specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and moreover, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no merit in the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and no ground for grant of regular bail is made out. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. July 28, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-12115 of 2010 (3) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No