Crl.M. No. M- 3847 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M- 3847 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.4.2011 ... Rajesh Kumar ................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Chanakya Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Sh. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant ... K.C. Puri, J. Petitioner – Rajesh Kumar has applied for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 139 dated 4.12.2009 under Section 306/34 IPC registered at Police Station GRPS Jalandhar. As per allegation of the prosecution, Meenakshi – deceased was married to Rajesh Kumar – present applicant in the month of April 2002. Two sons, namely, Anmol and Anurag were born out of this wedlock. It is alleged that after four years of the marriage, Rajesh Kumar – applicant, his father Anchal Dass, his mother Lalita, his brother Jiwan Ram @ Bunty and Bhabhi Jyoti started harassing Crl.M. No. M- 3847 of 2011 -2- Meenakshi for bringing more money from her parental house to purchase the land. Thereafter, complainant alongwith his father, maternal uncle, brother and uncle (fufar) Purshotam Lal, went to her in-laws house and tried to make them understand that complainant has not much amount to give to them but inspite of that in-laws family of his sister, continue to maltreat Meenakshi. 5-6 months prior, the complainant, his father and his brother went to village Sango Katrala and at that time her in-laws family demanded ` 2 lacs from them on the pretext of purchase of land. The complainant said to them that they will give ` 1 lac within 3-4 months and about 1 -1/2 months ago father of the complainant alongwith his friend Ashok Kumar and elder brother of the complainant Rajesh Kumar, gave ` 1 lac to the father-in-law in the presence of mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Again about 10-12 days prior, Meenakshi visited the house of the complainant and she told that her in-laws family gave beatings to her for the reason that her parental family did not give the full amount as demanded by them. On 4.12.2009 at about 4.15 P.M. The complainant received a call from Rajesh Kumar that dead body of Meenakshi was lying on the railway line. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegation against the accused are demand of ` 2 lacs, out of which ` 1 lac is stated to have been given to the father of the petitioner. It is submitted that joint account in the name of the petitioner as well as, in the name of Meenakshi was opened. It is further submitted that ATM card was provided to Meenakshi for withdrawal of the money and she actually withdrew an amount of ` 95,000/- on different dates Crl.M. No. M- 3847 of 2011 -3- and this fact has been observed by this Court in order dated 10.8.2010 while granting bail to Anchal Dass, father of the petitioner. He has further contended that FD of ` 50,000/- was purchased in the name of the deceased by the petitioner. It is further submitted that Anchal Dass father of the petitioner has been allowed the concession of bail, whereas brother and bhabhi of the petitioner have been found innocent. The petitioner is in custody since 4.12.2009. The trial is being delayed as application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been filed. So, prayer has been made for grant of bail. The prayer has been vehemently opposed by the State counsel, as well as, by the counsel for the complainant. It is submitted that Meenakshi was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of ` 2 lacs. ` 1 lac has already been given to Anchal Dass but inspite of that she was subjected to cruelty. So, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case. The admitted position is that petitioner is an employee of BSF and was posted in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The main allegation is regarding the demand of cash for the purchase of land. Anchal Dass has been allowed the concession of bail by this Court vide Crl.M.No. M-12913 of 2010 on 10.8.2010. The statement of account shows that vide ATM card No. 6220180236700125297, which has been issued in the name of Meenakshi Sharma, different amounts have been withdrawn from January 2009 till June 2009. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the said Crl.M. No. M- 3847 of 2011 -4- amount was withdrawn by the petitioner for the marriage of his sister, which was solemnized in the month of June 2009. But that argument does not appeal to the reasons as the amount was withdrawn in the month of January 2009 and thereafter. The fact that FDR of ` 50,000/- has been purchased in the name of Meenakshi, further lends support to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than 1 year and 4 months. The trial is not likely to the concluded at an early date. The petitioner was posted at BSF in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. So, without commenting on the merits of the case, in my view the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the bail application of the petitioner stands accepted. He is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, it is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of decision of this bail application and shall not be taken into consideration while deciding the main case. ( K.C. Puri ) 28.4.2011 Judge chugh