Crl. Misc. No.M-14122 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-14122 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 5, 2010 Nirmal Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.H.N.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Abhishekh Chautala, AAG, Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is mother-in-law of Rajwinder Kaur who had died an unnatural death within 7 years of marriage. There are allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the deceased had died in her maternal home and that she was brought to the hospital by her maternal aunt and uncle as such it cannot be said that soon before her death Crl. Misc. No.M-14122 of 2010 [2] she was treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is no medical evidence available indicating that the deceased had died an unnatural death. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the police file. There is a specific statement of the complainant to the effect that on April 28, 2009, a telephone call was received from the deceased that she had been beaten by her in-laws and that he should take her alone. The deceased had died on May 1, 2009. I have also considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that no medical evidence available regarding the unnatural death. I have gone through the report of chemical examiner, annexure P-5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it will not appropriate at this stage to determine whether the medical evidence is sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that she had died an unnatural death. It is sufficient to observe that the deceased was 23 years of age and the probability of her having died a natural death is remote especially when no material could be referred to by the counsel for the petitioner to indicate that she could have died a natural death. The presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act cannot be rebutted at this stage. Another circumstance for refusing the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is that the husband of the deceased is still absconding. It appears to be a case of custodial interrogation. No extraordinary circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. Crl. Misc. No.M-14122 of 2010 [3] Nothing mentioned in the order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. July 5, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE