In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-1234 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:4.4.2011 Ravi Manchanda alias Ashu .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 11.6.2010 for the offence under Section 305 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of the Raj Kumar Singh, father of the deceased Anuradha Rajput aged 17 years. According to the complainant, Raj Kumar Singh, his daughter was a student of 10+1 class (Medical) in Doaba Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr. On 10.6.2010 at about 1.30 a.m. in the night while the complainant and his son were sleeping in their room and his daughter used to study and sleep in a separate room, they heard their neighbour Deepu calling them in a loud voice and stating that there was a fire in their bath room which is on the Cr. Misc. No.M-1234 of 2011 [2] terrace. The entire family got-up and went upstairs and when they opened the gate of the bathroom they saw that the daughter of the complainant was on fire. They after putting cloth on her arranged a vehicle and brought her to Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr. She was given first aid and she was referred to C.M.C., Ludhiana. When they were coming to Ludhiana in an ambulance, then Anuradha daughter of the complainant informed that 1½ years back when she along with the family members had visited the Radha Swami Dera at Beas to attend satsang, she met the petitioner and he handed over to her a mobile phone of Voda company with a SIM card. The petitioner stated that he would talk to her daily on this mobile phone and he also stated that he would deposit the money to its account. After that they both talked daily to each other and he used to say that she should marry him. The daughter of the complainant was not agreeable as she wanted to get married only with the consent of her parents. The petitioner, however, used to threaten her that if she did not marry him then he would kill her and then kill himself. On 9.6.2010, the daughter of the complainant received a call from the petitioner that he would kill himself on that day as he was not able to marry the daughter of the complainant. The daughter of the complainant was perturbed with all this as this was a routine affair. Kerosene oil was lying in the room and she after pouring the kerosene on herself went upstairs to the bath room on the terrace and set herself on fire. Then she gave a call to the petitioner saying that she had set herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil as she was disturbed from his side. At that time, she switched off that mobile phone which was given to her by the petitioner and which was kept concealed from the family members. While the complainant was Cr. Misc. No.M-1234 of 2011 [3] taking his daughter to Civil Hospital for treatment then the petitioner gave him a call on his mobile phone and stated that whether Anuradha had set herself on fire or not and then his neighbour replied from the same mobile number that Anuradha had already burnt. The daughter of the complainant was taken to D.M.C., Ludhiana on 10.6.2010 where she was admitted and she died on 11.6.2010 in D.M.C., Ludhiana. The case was initially registered for the offence under Section 306 IPC. However, since the deceased was less than 18 years of age, the challan was presented for the offence under Section 305 IPC. It has come during investigation that the petitioner had a mobile repair shop and he had given mobile phone and SIM card to the deceased Anuradha; besides, they used to talk to each other daily. The trial in the case is going on. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses out of 18 and 11 remain to be examined. The examination-in-chief of the complainant had been recorded and his cross-examination has been deferred. The case is now fixed before the trial Court on 19.4.2011. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the gravity of offence, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. April 4, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*