CRM No.M-22353 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-22.9.2010 Harminder Singh alias Billa and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Vakeel Singh, Advocate for Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The epitome of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present petition for regular bail filed by the petitioners, is that the marriage of Ranjit Kaur complainant was solemnized with Manjit Singh Ramdasiya Sikh four months prior to the present occurrence. After about 20/25 days of the marriage, the petitioner- accused Harminder Singh alias Billa (younger brother of her husband), his wife Balwinder Kaur alias Binder (sister-in-law) petitioner No.2 and Prem Kaur (mother-in-law) petitioner No.3 started quarreling with the complainant on account of bringing insufficient dowry. They treated her with cruelty on account of demand of dowry and gave beatings to her. The prosecution claimed that on 30.12.2009 at about 3 P.M., petitioners Balwinder Kaur and Prem Kaur came there and poured kerosene from the stove and put her on fire. She raised noise, which attracted the neighbourers, who saved her from the clutches of the accused. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that the petitioners-accused attempted to commit her murder by pouring kerosene and putting her on fire. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Ranjit Kaur, the CRM No.M-22353 of 2010 2 present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.107 dated 30.12.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 307, 498-A, 506 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Behram, Distt.Shahibzada Bhagat Singh Nagar. 3. Having exercised their right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, the petitioners have directed the present petition for regular bail in the present case, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 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 this regard. 6. As is evident from the record that petitioner No.3 Prem Kaur is an old lady of 70 years mother -in-law of the complainant, while petitioner No.1 Harminder Singh alias Billa is brother-in-law (Devar) and petitioner No.2 Balwinder Kaur alias Binder is sister-in-law (Devrani) of the complainant. As per the medical record, all the injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature. Whether the penal provisions of section 307 IPC would be attracted, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, will be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court at the time of trial. The prosecution did not produce the opinion of the doctor that any of the injuries were dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. The petitioners were arrested on 5.2.1010 and since then they are in judicial custody. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that there appears to be previous dispute between the petitioners and the complainant in this relevant connection. Manjit Singh, who is son of petitioner Prem Kaur and brother of petitioner Harminder Singh, did not raise any accusing finger in any manner towards the petitioners. It is clear from the impugned order dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure P2) that as no witness CRM No.M-22353 of 2010 3 has yet been examined, therefore, conclusion of the trial will naturally take long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are ladies and the law of bail is liberal towards them. 8. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of 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 petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 10. 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 instant petition. 11. Thus, the petition is disposed of accordingly. 22.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge