Crl. Misc. No.M-1958 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-1958 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.02.2011 Neelam Rani .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.C. Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against her on 12.10.2009 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana. The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the complaint of Hukam Chand whose daughter Seema Rani was married with Vinod Kumar about 4½ years earlier to the registration of the FIR, which was registered on 12.10.2009. The complainant had given dowry to his daughter-Seema Rani as per his capacity. Despite that she was, it is alleged, harassed for bringing inadequate dowry. The complainant collected Rs.1 lac in instalments which he gave to the in-laws of his daughter. However, harassment of the daughter of the complainant could not stop and a demand was raised for more dowry. The matter was then compromised with the intervention of the relatives of the complainant in his brotherhood. The daughter of the complainant remained with him for about one month. When the complainant's daughter was pregnant, her in-laws stopped looking after her and she was asked to bring more money. When Crl. Misc. No.M-1958 of 2011 ::2:: she showed her inability then her husband-Vinod Kumar left her at the house of the complainant. Seema Rani (daughter of the complainant) remained with the complainant and she had a daughter who was about 1½ years old when the FIR was registered. Even on asking the son-in-law of the complainant to take his wife, he did not come to take her. Thereafter respectable persons and relatives submitted an application in the Women Cell, Ludhiana and a compromise was effected on 02.04.2008 and daughter of the complainant was sent to her in-laws' house. On her return, demand for more dowry was raised. The complainant purchased a cooler and gave it to the in-laws of his daughter. On 07/08.10.2009, Seema Rani made a telephone call to the complainant and informed the complainant that her husband and mother-in-law (petitioner) were demanding money from her and were pressurizing her to sign some papers regarding sale of house. They were also saying that in case she did not want to sign then she should bring more money. Seema Rani showed her inability to pay the money. On 10.10.2009 in the morning at about 6.30 p.m., the complainant received a telephone call from his son-in-law Vinod Kumar that the condition of Seema Rani was very serious and he should reach at Ram Charitable Hospital, immediately. The complainant when went with his family to Ram Charitable Hospital, then, at that time, his son-in-law and his daughter-Seema Rani were not there. Thereafter, Vinod Kumar informed the complainant that he should reach DMC Hospital. The complainant along with his family members reached DMC Hospital. However, his son- in-law and daughter were not there. The complainant along with his family members then reached Mohalla Gandhi Nagar and saw that in the court- yard the dead body of Seema Rani was lying. Anil Kumar (Seema Rani's husband's elder brother-Jeth); Muskan (Jethani), Suman (Nanad), Neelam Rani (mother-in-law) and Vinod Kumar (son-in-law) used to beat Seem Rani and demand dowry from her. The complainant was sure that his son- Crl. Misc. No.M-1958 of 2011 ::3:: in-law Vinod Kumar, Neelam Rani (petitioner) and other family members in connivance with each other, after administering some poisonous substance to Seema Rani had killed her. The post-mortem of Seema Rani was also got conducted on 11.10.2009. Due to the death of his daughter, the complainant was in a state of sorrow. On 12.10.2009, he was going to the Police Station to inform about the incident that had occurred. The complainant got his statement recorded, which was correct. The complainant requested that legal action be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in custody since 13.10.2009 and in enquiry report (Annexure P-4), it has been observed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (North) that the deceased was residing along with her husband separately from his other family members. It is also submitted that Rajinder Kumar (brother of the deceased-Seema Rani) made a statement on 10.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) on the basis of which proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. In the statement, he did not level any allegation regarding demand for dowry. Therefore, it is submitted that the death of Seema Rani is not in connection with any alleged demand for dowry and the entire case is false. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution shall establish its case by leading evidence. It is submitted that the trial in the case is going on Out of 22 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, 3 witnesses have been examined and the prosecution shall take effective steps to conclude the trial in the case expeditiously. It is also submitted that the death of Seema Rani was in her matrimonial-home after 4½ years of the marriage and the death was an unnatural one inasmuch as Seema Rani died due to consuming some poisonous substance; besides, it is submitted that there are specific allegations in connection with demand for dowry. Therefore, the petitioner Crl. Misc. No.M-1958 of 2011 ::4:: is not entitled to the concession of bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case relates to death of Seema Rani in her matrimonial home after 4½ years of the marriage with Vinod Kumar; besides, she died an unnatural death by consuming some poisonous substance. There are allegations in the FIR that soon before her death, the deceased-Seema Rani was subjected to cruelty in connection with demands of dowry. It has been alleged in the FIR by the complainant that on 07/08.10.2009, his (complainant's) daughter-Seema Rani made a call and informed the complainant that her husband-Vinod Kumar and mother- in-law-Neelam Rani (petitioner) were demanding money from her and were pressurizing her to sign on some papers regarding sale of house and they were also saying that in case she did not want to sign, then, she should bring more money, to which Seema Rani-deceased showed her inability to give money. In the facts and circumstances, it would be inexpedient to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner-Neelam Rani at this stage. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. However, learned trial Court shall take effective steps to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within 8 months from the next date fixed before the learned trial Court. However, nothing stated or observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the evidence and material as adduced before it uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. (S.S. SARON) February 25, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet