IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-6177 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.3.2011 Bhola Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mr. PS Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 306, 506, 120-B and 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of the dying declaration of Parveen Kaur wife of the petitioner Bhola Singh. Parveen Kaur (deceased) made a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate in which she alleged that her husband i.e. the petitioner about four months earlier (i.e. earlier to 21.4.2010) had developed illicit relations with one Mamta. The petitioner was stopped by his wife (deceased) and children from carrying on with such a relationship. However, Parveen Kaur (deceased) was being threatened. It is alleged that Mamta used to sell smack and Parveen Kaur (deceased) used to stop her. The petitioner, however, used to throw her (Parveen Kaur- deceased) out of the house after beating her. Her clothes were burnt and he used to say that he would take labour from her. Their motorcycle was burnt in front of the house of Mamta. The children of the petitioner and the complainant also tried to stop CRM No. M-6177 of 2011 [2] Mamta and the petitioner but they did not hear them. The mother-in-law and father-in-law of Mamta were also favouring them. They used to threaten the complainant-Parveen Kaur on phone. Sometimes back the petitioner had scared the complainant by saying that the children had quarreled and one had been put on fire while the second had taken poison. Mamta and her father-in-law and mother-in-law had given the complainant threatening calls from a phone number which is mentioned. The petitioner had incited Mamta that Parveen Kaur (deceased-complainant) was sending the police for recovery of smack. The complainant went to the house of Mamta to tell her that neither she had said so nor had she done so. Mamta, however, said that in case Parveen Kaur entered her house, she would put petrol on her. The complainant thought that it was only a verbal threat, but Mamta put the complainant on fire by putting a bottle of petrol on her. The complainant raised cries, due to which people gathered there and Mamta said that if they would lodge a report against her, she (Mamta) would also prepare a same case and take poison. Mamta, her father-in-law and mother-in-law and other customers who were taking smack had threatened the complainant that they would kill her children. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the case and the allegations are primarily against Mamta. It is also submitted that father of the deceased namely Sabar son of Wassan Singh had submitted before Randeep Singh, DSP, Faridkot on 10.6.2010 that Parveen Kaur (deceased) had suspicion that the petitioner was having illicit relations with Mamta but this was not true because the deceased had put herself on fire in front of the house of Mamta. Sabar, father of the deceased along with his grandchildren CRM No. M-6177 of 2011 [3] namely Sandeep Kaur and Gurpeet Singh had taken the complainant-Parveen Kaur to the hospital and there were some persons in the hospital, who advised the deceased that she should name someone, otherwise, she (Parveen Kaur) would be implicated in a case under Section 309 IPC for attempting to commit suicide. Therefore, in order to save herself, the complainant had falsely implicated the petitioner and Mamta in this case. It is submitted that Sandeep Kaur and Gupreet Singh had deposed before the Police officials and their statements are part and parcel of the report filed by the Police under Section 173 CrPC. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case was registered on the basis of dying declaration of Parveen Kaur (deceased) in which she has stated that the petitioner used to instigate Mamta and he had illicit relations with her. Despite, Parveen Kaur (deceased) stopping the petitioner and Mamta from carrying on with such a relationship, they continued with their affair. The children of the deceased-Parveen Kaur had also tried to stop them, but they did not hear. The complainant-Parveen Kaur caught fire after petrol bottle was thrown on her by Mamta. The case was initially registered for the offence under Section 306 IPC and now the case stands registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for bail is made out at this stage. The Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) March 17, 2011 JUDGE amit