In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-33921 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:15.1.2010 Sabir and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pawan Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the complainant- respondent No.2. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 304-B and 34 Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case filed by respondent No.2. Earlier FIR No.44 dated 31.1.2007 was registered at Police Station Nuh for the said offences. During investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and a cancellation report was filed. The complainant/respondent No.2 has filed the complaint in which the petitioners have been summoned. In consequence of the interim bail granted on 11.12.2009 the petitioners put in appearance before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh on 6.1.2010 and furnished their bail bonds and surety bonds. In compliance with the order passed by this Court the Cr. Misc. No.M-33921 of 2009 [2] petitioners have been allowed interim bail till today and their bail bonds have been accepted. The allegations in the complaint are that the daughter of the complainant, namely, Rubina was married with Hamid on 12.5.2000 in accordance with Muslim rites and ceremonies. The complainant gave substantial dowry in the marriage. However, the accused used to taunt the daughter of the complainant that she had no issue. The daughter of the complainant used to inform the complainant about this. She was also beaten. In the year 2006 they demanded Rs.1 lakh and a Maruti car from the daughter of the complainant as she had remained issueless. The complainant requested the accused to maintain his daughter but the accused stated that the complainant was in a position to give a Maruti car. On 24.1.2007, when the complainant along with Imran and Arif visited the house of the accused to see his daughter, they found that the accused had given a beating to her and threatened to kill her. They said that the complainant had not given Rs.1 lakh and a Maruti car to them so they would kill the daughter of the complainant and perform second marriage of her husband to some other lady. On 25.1.2007, at about 5.00 p.m. the complainant received a telephone message from Village Malab that his daughter was burnt by putting kerosene oil and she was shifted to Mandikhera Hospital. When the complainant reached there, she had 100% burns and was not able to give statement. She was referred to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi. On the asking of the complainant, she had told the complainant that the accused persons put kerosene oil on her and had burnt her and she was not able to speak. However, at that time all the accused colluding with each other got recorded the dying declaration of Rubina Cr. Misc. No.M-33921 of 2009 [3] despite the fact that she was unable to speak. At the time of recording of her statement, the complainant was sent outside and the statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and he got the signatures of the complainant, but the complainant was unaware. It is alleged that the Police has not investigated the case. In terms of the statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate, it has been stated by Rubina that her clothes caught fire while preparing food. However, it is not mentioned that the stove burst. In the medico-legal examination conducted by Medical Officer of Mandikhera Hospital, it was specifically mentioned by the Doctors that smell of kerosene oil was emanating and she had 100% burns. The Police had even not taken the clothes or other articles of body to detect the kerosene oil. Rubina had died on 28.1.2007. It was prayed that the accused may be summoned. It is not in dispute that in terms of dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Delhi, Rubina has not named the accused as the persons who had put kerosene oil on her. It is for the said reason that cancellation report has been filed. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the custody of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the deceased Rubina does not implicate the petitioners as responsible for her death, it would be just and expedient that the petitioners in the event of their arrest in the complaint case are admitted to bail to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh where the complaint is pending after summoning. The petitioners shall abide by the Cr. Misc. No.M-33921 of 2009 [4] conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the case on the basis of evidence and material as is adduced before it. January 15, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*