IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-24255 of 2009 Date of decision : September 10, 2009 Sunita and others ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Sunita, Vidya Devi and Sukha Singh have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 266 dated 6.8.2009 under sections 306 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, Sunita petitioner no. 1 was married with Surender Kumar since deceased. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are mother and brother respectively of petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 1 suspected that Surender Kumar was having illicit relations with his brother's wife. For this reason, relations between petitioner no. 1 and the deceased Criminal Misc. No. M-24255 of 2009 -2- were strained. About 20 days prior to the occurrence, petitioner no. 1 called her other brother Satnam Singh and petitioner no. 2 and went to her parental house. On 18.7.2009, petitioner no. 1 lodged a case of dowry demand. On 1.8.2009, Surender Kumar was telephonically called to the petitioners' house and was rebuked. Thereafter, complainant party took Panchayat but even Panchayat persons were called bad names by the side of the petitioners. On 4.8.2009, complainant party went to Sangria court and engaged a lawyer and came back. On 6.8.2009, on receiving telephone call from his in-laws, the deceased went on motorcycle. On return, deceased told his father Teja Singh complainant that all the three petitioners and their co-accused Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh (brother and father respectively of petitioner no. 1) had given him beatings and pushed him and somehow he saved his life. Feeling humiliated, Surender Kumar committed suicide by setting himself afire. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the instant petition qua petitioner nos. 1 and 3. Dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner nos. 1 and 3. As regards, petitioner no. 2, she is mother-in-law of the deceased. No substantial specific role has been attributed to her. Keeping in view the fact that she is a lady and all other circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, it would be in the interest of justice to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to petitioner no. 2. Accordingly, the instant petition qua petitioner no. 2 is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioner no. 2 shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the condition that Criminal Misc. No. M-24255 of 2009 -3- petitioner no. 2 shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall comply with the conditions specified in section 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Presently, petitioner no. 2 is directed to join investigation on 17.9.2009 at 10.00 AM and continue to do so as and when required by the police. The instant order qua petitioner no. 2 shall remain operative till one month after the filing of the charge sheet by the police or till decision of regular bail application of petitioner no. 2, whichever is earlier. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 10, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'