IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-19507 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: July 12, 2010 Paramjit Kaur @ Gejo …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.61 dated 7.5.2010 under sections 304-B, 120-B IPC at police station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga. The FIR was lodged on the basis of statement of Harnek Singh, who alleged that his daughter Sandeep Kaur was harassed by the petitioner and co-accused for not bringing sufficient dowry. He stated that his daughter was married to Lakhwinder Singh son of petitioner in 2009. She was continuously harassed thereafter by her husband and mother-in-law (petitioner) for not bringing sufficient dowry. A demand of Rs.5 lacs was made whereafter father of deceased alongwith certain other villagers went to meet husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, but they refused to accommodate them. On 7.5.2010 at about 9.50 P.M., a Crl.Misc.No.M-19507 of 2010 - 2 - message was received that daughter of complainant was serious. The complainant alongwith his wife reached village Chuhar Chak at 11.00 P.M. and found his daughter lying dead in the courtyard of the house. Consequently, he lodged the instant FIR alleging that his daughter was constantly harassed by her mother-in-law (petitioner) and husband. As a result of which, she died. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that deceased was under depression and thus, she committed suicide. The petitioner never harassed the deceased for dowry. This apart, the ingredients of offence under section 304-B IPC are not made out and thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR shows that complainant has ascribed a clear-cut role to the petitioner. He has alleged that after marriage his daughter was constantly harassed by her mother-in-law (petitioner) for brining insufficient dowry. On one occasion, a demand of Rs.5 lacs was made, which could not be fulfilled by the complainant. In view of seriousness of allegations and nature of crime, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. The factual submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding false implication of petitioner is without any merit and cannot be gone into at this stage. The other contention that 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-19507 of 2010 - 3 - ingredients of offence under section 304-B IPC are not made out, is also without any basis. Admittedly, the death took place in unnatural circumstances within one year of marriage due to harassment meted out to the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. The petition is thus, devoid of merit and is dismissed. July 12, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3