Crl.M.No.M 9262 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M 9262 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 29, 2010 Kashmir Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.67, dated 14.5.2009, under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Chabhal, District Tarn Taran. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though initially the case was registered for offence under Section 304-B IPC, however, on an enquiry being conducted by Superintendent of Police, it was found that no offence under Section 304-B IPC is made out and that offence was converted to under Section 306 IPC vide DDR No.6, dated 30.11.2009. It has been further contended that however, from the averments made in the complaint, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out and hence, petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. I have considered all the facts of the case. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that marriage of Jaswinder Kaur, deceased, was solemnised with Angrej Singh, son of present petitioner on 9.7.2008. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage according to the capacity of the complainant. There are specific allegations Crl.M.No.M 9262 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of entrustment of dowry to petitioner-accused as well. Further allegations are that after about one month, the present petitioner started harassing the deceased that her father has given duplicate gold bangle. Deceased continued to tell complainant and her mother that her mother-in-law, Kashmir Kaur, the present petitioner alongwith her Jeth and Jethani used to harass her. About one month before this occurrence, husband of deceased went abroad and hence, deceased visited village of her parents. It was told to deceased that necessity for money had arisen in the house and she was asked to bring Rs.1 lac from her father. Complainant alongwith his daughter after arranging Rs.30,000/- for rehabilitating his daughter in the matrimonial house, reached at 10'O clock and found that petitioner-accused alongwith Jeth and Jethani of the deceased was present in the house. Complainant handed over Rs.30,000/- in cash to Kashmir Kaur and requested them that they should not harass his daughter. However, on 13.5.2009, at 7.00 P.M., he received a message that his daughter died in the matrimonial home. Complainant alongwith other persons reached there and found that his daughter died of poisoning. Hence, in view of the allegations that deceased died due to poisoning in the house of her in-laws just within one year of her marriage, petitioner being mother-in-law and husband had already gone abroad, hence, merely on the ground that police has converted the offence from Section 304-B IPC to Section 306 IPC, it cannot be said that petitioner is entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Kashmir Kaur for anticipatory bail is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 29.3.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge