IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-22522 of 2008 Date of Decision : 24.10.2008 Gian Devi ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Amanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG Haryana for the respondent- State. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in case registered vide FIR No.76 dated 6.10.2007 under Sections 498-A,302,34 IPC at Police Station Mohana. As per the story unfolded by the prosecution on 2.10.2007 Meena (deceased) was admitted to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences ( for short `PGIMS') having burn injuries on her person. For three dates i.e. 3.10.2007, 4.10.2007 and 5.10.2007, she remained unfit to make statement. On 6.10.2007, her statement was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak in which she had stated that her husband was demanding Rs.50,000/- by stating that he was to start business and she was told that she has to demand the money from her mother on telephone. Her mother expressed inability to give that amount. Her husband Narender raised a dispute and her father-in-law exhorted to kill her. Then her mother- in-law Gian Devi poured kerosene upon her and her husband set her ablaze and fled away. -2- Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even the allegations were against father-in-law Fateh Singh, who has been put in Column No.2. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that two witnesses namely Rattan Singh and Angoori Devi parents of the deceased have resiled, therefore, the case set up by the prosecution has no legs to stand. On the other hand, State counsel has argued that the parents of the deceased have been influenced by the defence otherwise in her dying declaration recorded by the JMIC, the deceased had assigned the role of the petitioner, who had poured kerosene on her. She has also stated that already nine witnesses have been examined and the next date before the trial Court is 18.12.2008 for the evidence of other five witnesses to be recorded. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within 6 months from the date of this order. The petition is disposed of. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 24.10.2008 Judge Meenu