Crl. Misc. No. M-30033 of 2011(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-30033 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 03, 2011 Jaswinder Kaur and another ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. R.K.Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioners *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by Jaswinder Kaur and Satwinder Kaur alias Lovely, petitioners, for directing the Arresting Officer to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in FIR No. 107 dated 23.8.2011 registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Dasuya, District, Hoshiarpur. It has been contended in the petition that Avtar Singh son of Jaswinder Kaur-petitioner No. 1 and brother of the husband of Satwinder Kaur @ Lovely, petitioner No. 2 was married to Anita Kumari-deceased, Crl. Misc. No. M-30033 of 2011(O&M) -2- who died on 21.11.2010. No allegation was made against them in the first version given by the complainant in the FIR registered on 23.8.2011 and he came out with a version against them on 8.12.2010, when he gave written application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-3). An enquiry was marked to the Women Cell, where a compromise was entered into between the parties and the complainant agreed to receive ` 1,60,000/- in lieu of dowry articles. That amount was duly paid to him against a written receipt. No such abetment is made out from the FIR or the application (Annexure P-3) on the basis of which it may be said that offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the petitioners. It was narrated by Vijay Kumar, complainant, in the FIR that Anita Kumari-deceased, had delivered a male child on 21.11.2010 at about 9-00 a.m. in Civil Hospital, Tanda, and on the same day he received a telephone call from the side of the accused that she died at 6.45 p.m. When he went to the house of the accused on the next day at about noon, he found the dead body of the deceased lying in the house and entered into a doubt that her death was not natural. He made a request for conducting the inquest proceedings. After the post mortem examination, opinion regarding the cause of death was deferred for awaiting the opinion of the Chemical Examiner, to whom the viscera of the dead body was sent. The Chemical Examiner found organo phosphorous in the viscera and thereafter, the cause of death was given as poisoning. No doubt, no such allegation was levelled in the FIR against the present petitioners that they had been harassing the deceased or had been treating her with cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry but in the Crl. Misc. No. M-30033 of 2011(O&M) -3- application which was given by the complainant before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, he specifically levelled those allegations against them. It cannot be said that there was any such occasion with the deceased to have taken the poison herself on the day, she delivered a male child. It was for the petitioners-accused to explain how she died within the four walls of their house. No such explanation was offered by them during the investigation of the case. It may be said that from the contents of the FIR and the facts which have been collected so far, the offence under Section 302 IPC is made out against the present petitioners and other accused. For such like offence, even if there was any such compromise between the parties, the same has least effect. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment prescribed for the same, I do not find any ground to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail and the petition is dismissed. However, the observations made in this order shall not be taken as expression of opinion on merits. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE October 03, 2011 PARAMJIT