Criminal Misc.No.M-16661 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-20.9.2010 Rajender Pal s/o Anant Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Rajender Pal son of Anant Ram, has filed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.20 dated 2.3.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 306 IPC by the police of Police Station Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the instant case. 4. The marriage of Suman (deceased) was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 1998. Two children were born out of this wedlock. The prosecution claimed that the deceased committed suicide on account of harassment and demand of dowry by the petitioner. Jagdish, brother of the deceased, put the police machinery into motion and made the statement, which formed the basis of Criminal Misc.No.M-16661 of 2010 2 FIR. As per the version given by the children of the petitioner, their mother poured kerosene on them as well as on herself on the fateful day. There is no direct evidence against the petitioner. Whether the penal provisions of section 306 IPC would be attracted on the facts of this case or not, will be a moot point, to be decided by the trial Court during the course of trial. The petitioner was arrested on 3.3.2010. Since then he is in judicial custody. As the police did not produce single witness till today, therefore, the conclusion of trial would naturally take long time. There is no previous history of involvement of the petitioner in any such case. Moreover, the basic rule is bail and not jail in such like cases. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 7. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 20.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge