Criminal Misc.No.23853 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-20.9.2010 Jasmail Kaur widow of Karam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG Hayana. Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised her right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Jasmail Kaur widow of Karam Singh, unfortunate mother-in- law of complainant Jasvir Kaur, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against her and her other co-accused, namely, Darshan Singh (husband), Hardip Singh, Sukhpal Kaur, Smt.Akko and Malkiat Singh, vide FIR No.161 dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 406, 494, 498-A, 504, 506 and 120-B PC by the police of Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa, invoking the provisions of section 438 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 assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 4. As is evident from the record that the marriage of complainant Jasvir Kaur was solemnized with Darshan Singh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the month of March, 1992. The parents of the complainant were stated to have Criminal Misc.No.23853 of 2010 2 given sufficient dowry articles, but the accused party was not satisfied. They started demanding more articles and Alto Car, but the parents of the complainant could not fulfill their demand. 5. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the complainant that the accused treated her with cruelty on account of and in connection with demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint made by complainant Jasvir Kaur, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner indicated here-in-above. 6. All the main allegations of demand of dowry and Alto Car are assigned to the main accused Darshan Singh (husband). Petitioner is not in any manner the beneficiary of the demand of Alto Car. It is not a matter of dispute that Darshan Singh complainant's husband was arrested and released on regular bail. Again, it is clear from the order (Annexure P4) that Sukhpal Kaur, Smt.Akko and Malkiat Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, have already been allowed anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Krishan Kumar, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and she is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 7. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above 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 present petition for anticipatory bail is allowed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to Criminal Misc.No.23853 of 2010 3 the conditions that (i) she is directed to make herself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) she will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 9. Needless to state that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of her bail, in this relevant connection. 20.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge