Crl. Misc. No.M-20164 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-20164 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 9, 2010 Santosh Devi …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is mother-in-law of Darshana who died an unnatural death on account of cruelty and the demand of dowry raised by the petitioner and other family members. All the prosecution witnesses stand examined. Chances of tampering with the evidence are remote. Petitioner has been in custody Crl. Misc. No.M-20164 of 2010 [2] since September 9, 2009. To rebut the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, the petitioner is required to produce defence evidence. Co-accused of the petitioner similarly circumstanced i.e. father-in-law has already been released on bail. Without expression of any opinion with sole objective to enable the petitioner to produce defence evidence to rebut the statutory legal presumption, the petitioner can be granted the concession of bail. The petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. November 9, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE