CRM-M-33338 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33338 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:15.12.2011 Munshi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Present: Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the State. Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate ***** M.M.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) Petitioner seeks cancellation of the order granting regular bail to respondent No.4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the daughter of the petitioner had died on account of 80% burns suffered by her. There are allegations of demand of dowry. She had died unnatural death. Respondent No.4 was granted the concession of regular bail. He had remained in custody for a period of four months. The trial Court had considered the dying declaration of the deceased wherein she had stated that while heating milk for her son, she accidentally caught fire. The said statement seems to have weighed with the trial Court. On the basis of the CRM-M-33338 of 2011 2 said statement, the petitioner, prima-facie, has got a defence to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, it is sufficient to observe that respondent No.4 has not misused his liberty. Two prosecution witnesses have already been examined. No ground is made out to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.4. Dismissed. In case, any attempt is made by respondent No.4 to tamper with the evidence, it will be open to the complainant to approach this Court for cancellation of bail. December 15, 2011. ( M.M.S. Bedi ) sk Judge