Criminal Misc. No.M-30545 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-30545 of 2011 Date of Decision : 26th November, 2011 Poonam & others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryan. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Poonam, her mother Premo Devi and uncle Babu Ram have filed this petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. in FIR No.56 dated 08.03.2011 under Sections 323, 328, 498-A and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Complainant Urmila Devi was married with Sanjiv-brother, son and nephew respectively of the present petitioners, about one year before the occurrence. On the night of 07.03.2011, petitioners No.1 and 3 along with complainant's husband and father-in-law forced the complainant to drink poison from a bowl given to her by them. At that time, petitioner No.2 was also present. The accused did not even take the complainant to any hospital for medical aid. The complainant rang up the police control room on telephone number 100 and thereupon she Criminal Misc. No.M-30545 of 2011 -2- was taken to hospital by police after calling the complainant's father. Poison has been detected in her vomit/gastric lavage as per report of Chemical Examiner. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, it has not been alleged that she also forced the complainant to consume poison. This allegation is against other accused including petitioners No.1 and 3. The allegation against petitioner No.2 is regarding her presence and regarding beatings etc. As regards petitioner No.1, she is married with brother of the complainant. She is female. Petitioners are in custody since 09.08.2011 i.e. for three and half months. Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners No.1 and 2 should be released on bail but petitioner No.3 does not deserve the concession of bail. Accordingly instant bail petition on behalf of petitioner No.3 is dismissed but the bail petition on behalf of petitioners No.1 and 2 is allowed. Bail to petitioners No.1 and 2 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra. ( L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 26th November, 2011 'raj'