IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 7192 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 18, 2010. Birender ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Nishit Kush, Advocate, Mr. Shyam S.Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev K.Baliyan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.277 dated 10.08.2009, under Sections 498-A/304B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Old Faridabad. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Brief allegations against the petitioner – accused are that he is husband of deceased – Usha and their marriage was solemnized on CRM No.M-7192 of 2010 10.03.2008. Wife of present petitioner, Usha, died just after one and half year of the marriage on account of burn injuries. Her dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate, Delhi wherein she specifically stated that she used to be harassed by her husband i.e. the present petitioner and her mother-in-law, the co-accused, for bringing less dowry. She has also specifically stated that her husband used to give her beatings and used to threaten to kill her for bringing no dowry in the marriage. She has further stated that in the morning of 09.08.2009 her mother-in-law misbehaved and threatened to kill her and due to disappointment, she poured kerosene oil upon herself. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner – accused that material witnesses have already been examined and that father and sister of deceased did not support the prosecution version and that in the dying declaration deceased had not stated that the present petitioner has threatened to kill her on the morning of 09.08.2009. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that next date fixed in this case is 31.05.2010 and that only two witnesses remain to be examined and that merely on the ground that co- accused has been granted bail, it cannot be said that he is entitled for concession of bail in view of dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate, Delhi. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. The case is likely to be decided in near future as only two witnesses remain to be examined. There are specific allegations against the present petitioner and co-accused, in the dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate, Delhi. Wife of the present petitioner had died just 2 CRM No.M-7192 of 2010 after one and half year of marriage and she made specific allegations of harassment and beatings on account of bringing less dowry by the present petitioner. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for bail filed by Birender is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as only two witnesses remain to be examined and efforts be made to dispose of the same within three months from the next date of hearing. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 18, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3