CRM No.M-21624 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-21.9.2010 Sunita w/o Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Ravi Gupta, Advocate for Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised her right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Sunita w/o Suresh Kumar, the unfortunate mother-in-law of Pooja (since deceased), has directed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against her alongwith her other co-accused, namely, Surinder (husband) and Suresh Kumar, father-in-law, vide FIR No.774 dated 6.11.2009, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 304-B read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Tersenessly, the prosecution case is that the marriage of Pooja (deceased) was solemnized with Surinder in the month of May, 2008. After the solemnization of the marriage, they resided as husband and wife together, but no child was born out of the said wedlock. It was claimed that although mother of the deceased had spent more than her capacity and gave sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage, but the accused were not satisfied with it. They demanded Rs.20,000/- for purchase of motorcycle. The complainant could not fulfill their demand. Then, they started harassment and taunting Pooja (deceased) in CRM No.M-21624 of 2010 2 connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On 6.11.2009 Pooja committed suicide by hanging. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution that Pooja died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and she was treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Rajpati, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner depicted here-in- above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. As is evident from the record that general and vague allegations are assigned to Sunita petitioner, who is mother-in-law of the deceased. The main allegation of demand of Rs.20,000/- for purchase of motorcycle was assigned to Surinder, husband of the deceased and the petitioner is not in any way the beneficiary from the motorcycle. She is an old lady. She was arrested on 8.11.2009 and since then she is in judicial custody. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that to begin with, the complainant has also levelled such allegations against Suresh Kumar father-in-law of the deceased , but during the course of investigation, he was found innocent and was discharged from the case. Even the case has not yet been committed, therefore, the conclusion of trial would naturally take long time. Main accused Surinder was arrested and is in judicial custody. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. Moreover, there is no useful purpose for further detaining the petitioner in jail. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and CRM No.M-21624 of 2010 3 circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular in the present case. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons 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 petitioner is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. Needless to state that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 10. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 21.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge