CRM No. M 6170 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 6170 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.03.2010 Tarsem Singh and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. B S Guliani, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that no offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal code was made out against the petitioners as there was no immediate instigation. It is further stated that no where it is mentioned that the petitioners had facilitated the commission of suicide committed by the deceased. It is also stated that there was no suicide note in this case, nor there is any dying declaration. The deceased was educated and was living separately and she died in the house where she was living separately in a rented accommodation with her husband. The marriage was a love marriage. The petitiones have nothing to do with them. CRM No. M 6170 of 2010 2 In fact, the petitioners have disowned their son in way back 2005. Heard. As per the allegations in the FIR, the in-laws were demanding Rs.10,00,000/- to settle Harmeet Singh, husband of the deceased. It is also stated that the father of the deceased was regularly paying Rs.1000/- as her husband was not doing anything and that her in-laws were harassing her on account of the fact that she was not able to bear a child even though a child was born and died in the course of delivery. The allegations are serious. It appears that the petitioners were upset with their son from the day he got married with the deceased girl without their consent. They were regularly nagging her. She died an un- natural death by hanging. It is not a fit case for extending the concession of anticipatory bail. The allegations are specific in nature. The judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. Reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 385 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not help in any way at this stage as the investigation is still to be conducted. It is yet to be established as to whether the petitioners have not abetted the commission of the said offence. No ground for anticipatory bail. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge March 19, 2010 mohan