Crl. Misc. No. M-30078 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30078 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 06, 2011 Shakuntla .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common order, I am disposing of two bail petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-30078 of 2011 filed by accused Shakuntla and Crl. Misc. No. M-34659 of 2011 filed by accused Naresh Kumar – both seeking bail in case FIR No.250 dated 04.08.2011, under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Crl. Misc. No. M-30078 of 2011 2 FIR was lodged by father of the deceased alleging that both the petitioners and their co-accused Deepak were harassing the deceased for more dowry and killed her by hanging. Deepak (non-petitioner) is husband of the deceased. Naresh Kumar – petitioner is elder brother of Deepak, whereas Shakuntla – petitioner is their mother. The deceased left behind suicide note (Annexure P-3) addressed to her husband. It is inter alia stated in the suicide note that she was committing suicide because she did not want to separate her husband from his parents. On investigation, it has been found that it was love marriage between the deceased and Deepak (non-petitioner). The complainant party did not even participate in the marriage, and therefore, question of giving any dowry in the marriage did not arise. The marriage took place about a year before the suicide. The deceased also gave birth to a son about two months before the suicide. FIR was initially registered under Section 304-B IPC, but since allegations of demand of dowry were not substantiated, challan has been presented under Section 306 IPC. Even charge under Section 306 IPC has since been framed by the trial court against all the three accused. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Suresh Kumar, stated that the petitioner Shakuntla is in custody since 10.08.2011 and petitioner Naresh Kumar is in custody since 09.08.2011 i.e. for almost four months. Crl. Misc. No. M-30078 of 2011 3 Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is no other female member in the family except petitioner Shakuntla to look after the infant baby left by the deceased. This factual position is not controverted by learned State counsel, after seeking instructions. It may be mentioned that petitioner Naresh Kumar is said to be unmarried. Petitioner Naresh Kumar has not even been named in the suicide note in any manner. Allegation of demand of dowry made against him in the FIR has not been substantiated. Petitioner Shakuntla is a woman and she also has to look after the infant son left by the deceased. Keeping in view the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, both the bail petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-30078 of 2011 filed by accused Shakuntla and Crl. Misc. No. M-34659 of 2011 filed by accused Naresh Kumar are allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. December 06, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE