Crl. Misc. No. M-26770 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-26770 of 2009 Date of Decision : October 12, 2009 Kartar Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Kartar Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.96 dated 30.06.2009, under Sections 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner is father-in-law of the deceased, who committed suicide in the matrimonial home after 15 months of her marriage. The allegation is that husband of the deceased and his parents including the petitioner had been taunting and harassing the deceased and even told her to Crl. Misc. No. M-26770 of 2009 2 die. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it was a love marriage between the petitioner's son and the deceased, whereas the complainant, who is father of the deceased, opposed the marriage, and in fact, the deceased tried to convince the complainant, but the complainant did not reconcile to the love marriage of his daughter and for this reason, the deceased committed suicide. On the other hand, learned State counsel pointed out that no allegations of dowry demand have been levelled, although it is usual in such cases. It was also pointed out that other family members of the petitioner, living in the same house, have also not been named. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There are specific allegations against husband of the deceased and his parents, including the petitioner, who is father-in-law of the deceased. It has been specifically alleged that the deceased was being taunted and harassed by all the three accused and on account thereof, she committed suicide. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to comment anything on merits, in my considered opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. October 12, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE