Crl.M. No. M-6323 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M-6323 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.3.2011 ... Pooja Devi ................Petitioner vs. State of Haryana .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant ... K.C. Puri, J. Pooja Devi – petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 266 dated 3.11.2010 under Section 306/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon. As per allegation of the prosecution, Saroj was married to Pardeep Kumar in the year 1999 and she gave birth to three daughters and one son, aged about 3 months. It is alleged that Pardeep Kumar is a heavy drunker and he used to tease Saroj and in this he was helped by her father-in-law Prem Narain, her sister-in-law – Poonam and Jethani-Pooja. On 25.10.2010, Saroj and her mother talked on Crl.M. No. M-6323 of 2011 -2- telephone and she had complained her mother that her husband, father-in-law, Jethani and sister-in-law (Nanad), used to harass her. She also told that they are making conspiracy against her. She requested to sent her brother on Karvachauth to bring her. On 26.10.2010, in the morning, the complainant, who happens to be the brother of Saroj, received a message that Saroj has died. The complainant alongwith his father and relatives went to the house of Saroj and found the body of Saroj having blueish and froth was coming out of her mouth. She died due to poisoning. It is alleged that accused have given her poison or she herself has committed suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a widow lady having three children. She is living separately, although in the same house and has also referred to the ration card dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure P-1). It is further submitted that there are general allegations against the petitioner. The father-in- law has been granted bail on medical grounds and Poonam has also been granted bail. So, prayer has been made for concession of bail. The prayer has been opposed by the State counsel, assisted by Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant. They have submitted that there are serious allegations under Section 306 IPC. So, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that only the real culprits have been named, although mother-in-law is alive, but she has not been arrayed as accused. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that mother-in-law is suffering from various ailments and is almost bed-ridden and on Crl.M. No. M-6323 of 2011 -3- that account she has not been named. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case. The father-in-law has been granted bail on medical grounds as he was admitted in the hospital. Poonam – sister-in-law has also been granted the concession of bail vide my separate order in Crl.M.No. M-5591 of 2011, as she was married much prior to the marriage of Saroj with Pardeep. So far as, the petitioner is concerned, according to Annexure P-1, she has two sons and one daughter whose age vary from 5 to 10 years. From the bare perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that the main allegations are against the husband. The allegation against the other accused is that they were assisting Pardeep in maltreatment. No specific instance has been given. The petitioner is a widow lady having three children to look after. She has a separate ration card. So, without commenting on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case to allow the concession of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for grant of anticipatory bail stands accepted. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer on compliance of the following conditions:- i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation, as and when required, by the police; ii)that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from Crl.M. No. M-6323 of 2011 -4- disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and iii)that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. ( K.C. Puri ) 15.3.2011 Judge chugh