IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 2757 of 2009 Date of decision: March 2, 2009 Madhubala ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner who is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased Smt. Neelam seeks regular bail in a case registered against her for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Parveen Kumar brother of the deceased Smt. Neelam. It has been alleged that his sister Neelam aged 24 years was married with Rajesh Kumar (non-petitioner). At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given according to their capacity. However, husband of the deceased namely Rajesh Kumar, Balak Ram the father-in-law and Madhu (petitioner)-the sister-in-law (Jethani) harassed and maltreated Neelam (deceased) for bringing inadequate dowry. They demanded motorcycle and sofa set. Whenever Neelam (deceased) visited her parental home, she stated that the accused were beating her in connection with demand for dowry. Being poor people, they could not fulfill their (accused) demands. On 16.11.2008, at about 12.30 p.m. Neelam (deceased) informed that her husband Rajesh and sister-in-law (Jethani) Crl. Misc. No. M- 2757 of 2009 [2] Madhu (petitioner) were quarreling with her and beating her. They threatened to kill her. Neelam (deceased) said that she was feeling discomfort and asked the complainant to bring her from there. The complainant told Neelam (deceased) that he was leaving to bring her to Rohtak. At about 2 p.m., when the complainant reached at Panipat, Rajesh’s sister who it is stated is residing at Delhi told the complainant on Mobile that Neelam (deceased) had committed suicide by hanging herself. As this was unbelievable, the complainant tried to contact Ravi who is the brother of Rajesh, but he also did not disclose anything. When the complainant reached the house of Rajesh at about 7.00 p.m., he found the dead body of his sister Neelam lying on the floor. There was ligature marks on her neck and there was swelling on her lip. The complainant was sure that his sister had been killed by her husband Rajesh and sister- in-law (Jethani) Madhu (petitioner) by hanging her for bringing inadequate dowry. As such, it was requested that action be taken against Rajesh Kumar-husband, Madhu sister-in-law (jethani) and Balak Ram (father-in-law) respectively of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is living separately with her husband at Azad colony, Panchkula and the allegations of dowry against the petitioner are not remotely made out. He has referred to the ration card (Annexure P3) which it is stated was issued on 2.8.2005 i.e. before the marriage that was solemnized in February, 2006 between Rajesh and Neelam. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner has a one year old daughter who is also in jail with the petitioner. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the allegations of demand for dowry are clearly attributed to the petitioner. It is submitted that Neelam died an unnatural death in the house of her in-laws. Besides, the petitioner was residing in the same house as that of her brother Rajesh Kumar and father Balak Ram. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Crl. Misc. No. M- 2757 of 2009 [3] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2008. The petitioner has a one year old daughter who is with her in jail. The question whether she was indeed living in the house of her brother Rajesh Kumar and father Balak Ram is to be gone into on the basis of evidence that is led. In terms of the ration card (Annexure P3), the petitioner is shown to be resident of H. No.477, Ward No.29, Azad Colony, Panchkula. The same is a different house from that of the brother-in-law and father-in-law of the petitioner. She is married to Ravish Kumar and out of the marriage, they have a son and a daughter. The daughter is in jail with the petitioner. Besides, the other accused namely Rajesh (husband of the deceased) and Balak Ram (father-in-law of the deceased) are in custody. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is granted the concession of bail. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 2, 2009 amit