Crl. Misc. No.M-32678 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH ***** Crl. Misc. No.M-32678 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 Siri Chand and Anr. … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent ***** Present: Mr. K.D.S. Hooda. Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Deol, Addl. AG, Haryana. ***** S.S. SARON, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek regular bail in a case registered against them on 28.6.2010 under Sections 304-B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Balwan Singh who has alleged that Kamlesh (deceased) daughter of his uncle Ramphal was married in the year 2006 with Rajesh (non-petitioner). In the marriage they had given dowry as per their capacity. Kamlesh, sister of the complainant, gave birth to two boys who were aged 3 years and 8 months, respectively, at the time of lodging of the FIR on 28.6.2010. After some months of the marriage, Kamlesh informed that her husband Rajesh and her elder brother-in-law Rakesh, father-in- law Siri Chand (petitioner No.1) and mother-in-law (petitioner No.2) used to say that her father had not given motorcycle in the dowry and it was settled that a motorcycle would be given. Thereafter, on 27.6.2010, the brother-in-law of the complainant namely Rajesh visited village Dingh and asked his aunt that they had not given motorcycle and demanded cash money for the same. On 27.6.2010, at about 9.00 pm, the complainant received a telephone call from Crl. Misc. No.M-32678 of 2010 -2- Rakesh who is elder brother of Rajesh that his (complainant's) sister Kamlesh had caught fire. On receiving the information, the complainant along with his uncle Ramphal reached at village Takhana. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the alleged demand for motorcycle is some time after the marriage, which was solemnized in 2006 whereas the incident occurred on 27.6.2010 and there is no demand for dowry from the petitioners. The last incident of demand of dowry is in respect of Rajesh and not the petitioners who are parents-in-law of the deceased Kamlesh. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner had harassed Kamlesh besides she died an unnatural death, within seven years of the marriage. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that there are no allegation in the FIR against the petitioners that soon before the death of Kamlesh she was subjected to cruelty or harassment, for or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The petitioners are stated to be 70 years old and 67 years old, respectively. They are in custody for the last about 6 months. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The husband of Kamlesh (deceased) is in custody. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioners on their furnishing personal bond and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Karnal shall be admitted to bail. The Crl. Misc. is disposed of. JANUARY 10, 2010 (S.S. SARON) RAJAN JUDGE