Crl. Misc. No. M-10621 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-10621 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 27, 2009 Kalawati .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Kalawati has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No.207 dated 17.07.2008, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Rai, District Sonepat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased with petitioner's son took place on 14.04.2008 and the deceased Pushpa died on 17.07.2008 i.e. just three months after the marriage. There are specific allegations against the petitioner that she used to harass the deceased for dowry. There is also allegation in oral dying declaration made Crl. Misc. No. M-10621 of 2009 2 by the deceased to her brother and mother that the petitioner and her husband and son had administered poisonous tablet to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that husband of the deceased was residing at Delhi, whereas the petitioner was residing at Sonepat separately from the deceased and her husband. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage because distance between Delhi and Sonepat is not much and thousands of persons daily commute between Sonepat and Delhi. Moreover, within first three months of the marriage, the deceased might be residing with her in-laws at Sonepat as well, besides residing with her husband at Delhi. Keeping in view the serious allegations and the death of the deceased just after three months of the marriage, but without meaning to comment anything on merits, the petitioner, in my view, does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. August 27, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE