Crl. Misc. No. M-8923 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8923 of 2009 Date of decision : April 28, 2009 Sukhwinder Singh and another ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab. Ms. Naveen Malik, Advocate, for the complainant. A.N. JINDAL, J. Petitioners by way of this application has sought directions to be issued to the trial Court to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in case FIR No.88 dated 10-6-2008, under Sections 304- B/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar, Muktsar. The four persons i.e. husband, mother-in-law, married sisters and her husband were named in the FIR for committing dowry death of Amandeep Kaur. Amandeep Kaur was married with Inderjit Singh in the month of January 2007. They were blessed with a Crl. Misc. No. M-8923 of 2009 -2- daughter on 20-11-2007. She committed suicide on 10-6-2008. Consequently FIR was registered against the aforesaid persons on 10-6-2008. The earlier application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this Court on September 2, 2008. Counsel for the petitioners had now pleaded that merely on account of the fact that the offence was serious in nature and normally anticipatory bail should not be granted in such cases. The Courts should also taken into consideration the unnecessary dragging, harassment and involvement of innocent persons. It was also urged that after the dismissal of the application, there are changed circumstances. On enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muktsar vide his report dated 16-10-2008 (Annexure P-5) found the petitioners to be innocent. They being married in the month of November 2003 i.e. much prior to the marriage were living at a distant place and they had nothing to do with the dowry and cruelty as alleged by the complainant. They were summoned only on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the statement of Nacchattar Singh PW-1 was recorded. No doubt the earlier application was dismissed in view of the gravity of the offence yet second application on the changed circumstances is not barred. Petitioners were married in 2003 and they are living at village Sodhi Nagar, Tehsil and District Ferozepur whereas the occurrence took place at village Udekaran in District Muktsar. During the enquiry held by DSP, they were found innocent. In any case, crux of the matter is that the investigation in the case is already over and the separate residence of the petitioners Crl. Misc. No. M-8923 of 2009 -3- has also not been assailed. In comparison to the gravity of the offence, though the same could be taken note of at the initial stage, yet the Court at such a stage is to weigh the liberty of the petitioners also, when ultimately petitioners are found innocent would be slapped conviction. Custodial interrogation at this stage of trial has become insignificant. In such circumstances, declining of the benefit of the probation of Section 438 Cr.P.C. has not been encouraged. The Apex Court in case Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349 while taking into consideration the separate residence of the petitioners from the deceased and her husband confirmed the bail granted to them under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The present case is on better footings as they were found innocent during the enquiry and their presence is only meant for the trial which could be ensured by directing them to furnish adequate bail bonds and surety bonds. Resultantly, I allow the petition and issue a direction to the trial Court to release them on bail in the event of their arrest on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to his satisfaction. (A.N. JINDAL) April 28, 2009 JUDGE manju