IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 31847 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.2.2009. Sunita Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr.SS Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.TS Salana, DAG, Punjab Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the complainant *** Harbans Lal, J. This petition has been moved by Sunita Devi petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her regular bail in case FIR No.91 dated 30.4.2008 registered under Sections 498-A, 324, 34 of IPC and Section 304- B of IPC at Police Station Islamabad Amrtisar. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that as per Annexure P-1 statement of Nidhi Suri deceased, her sister in law (nanad) namely Ruhi ran away from the house in order to get marry with somebody, but returned without marrying him. As such, her husband Makhan Suri, mother in law Sunita Devi (referring to the petitioner) and sister in law (nanad) and brother in law (dever) pressurised her and used to blame her that she is responsible for the same. Today, they (referring to the accused including petitioner) all in connivance with each other turned the gas on and asked her to cook “Bhartha” and they went out. When she started CRM No.M 31847 of 2008 (O&M) -2- cooking, she caught fire. Her whole body got burnt. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with great eloquence that as would be apparent from Annexure P-2, copy of the order dated 22.8.2008 passed by this Court, Ruhi and Dinesh Kumar, who were similarly situated to the petitioner have been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court. He further puts that the petitioner is in custody since 28.8.2008. In these premises, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. To tide over these submissions, Mr.TS Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab being assisted by Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the complainant, urged with great eloquence that keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner being the mother in law of the deceased does not deserve to be admitted to bail. This contention merits rejection. Needless to say, the petitioner is similarly situated to her co-accused Ruhi as well as Dinesh Kumar who as noted supra, have been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court. By applying the rule of parity, the concession of bail is required to be bestowed upon her as well. The completion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. February 4, 2009 (Harbans Lal) gsv Judge