IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-18433 of 2009 Date of decision : September 04, 2009 Jamil and another ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Jamil and Salim have filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 300 dated 16.7.2005 under sections 304-B read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Nuh, District Mewat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Jamil petitioner no. 1 is uncle of husband of the deceased whereas Salim petitioner no. 2 is younger brother of husband of the deceased. Umar Mohammad, father-in-law of the deceased has already been convicted whereas petitioners and some other co-accused were absconding. Ultimately, petitioners and Sehzad were arrested on 20.11.2008 whereas another co-accused Wahid was arrested in October, 2008. All of them were absconding. Other three co-accused who were absconding have been found innocent. Criminal Misc. No. M-18433 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are in custody since 20.11.2008 i.e. for more than nine months. It is also contended that petitioner no. 1 is uncle of husband of the deceased and was residing separately and therefore, he had no concern with dowry demand and harassment of the deceased. Learned State counsel, however, contended that both the petitioners were absconding for more than three years and father-in-law of the deceased had already been convicted. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Keeping in view the fact that Jamil petitioner no. 1 is uncle of husband of the deceased and was allegedly residing separately from the deceased and her in-laws but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, the instant bail petition qua Jamil is allowed. Bail to him to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Nuh. However, petitioner no. 2 Salim does not deserve the concession of bail. The instant petition qua petitioner no. 2 is dismissed but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 04, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'