IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-38087 of 2010 Date of decision : 9.2.2011 Dharambir and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …. Respondents Present: Mr. Neeraj Bhutani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Deol, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek regular bail in a case registered against them on 28.3.2010 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The petitioners are the parents-in-law of the deceased-Bhateri who was married with Harjit Singh on 6.12.2004. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Balbir Singh, father of the deceased-Bhateri. It is alleged that after marriage of his daughter Bhateri with Harjit Singh, she was harassed by her husband and in-laws in connection with demand for dowry. On one occasion, the complainant gave `1.5 lacs to his son-in-law and to the parents-in-law of his daughter for purchasing tractor-trolley. After that her daughter was not harassed for sometime, but later they again demanded more money. The complainant along with CRM No. M-38087 of 2010 [2] his cousin Rajesh went to village Bhadani and handed over an amount of `85,000/- to the four accused for purchasing a buffalo. He also gave a ‘Nokia’ cell phone along with SIM card to his daughter to know about her well-being. On 27.3.2010, the complainant received a telephone call from Harjit Singh, his son-in-law that his daughter has become unconscious. Thereafter, he disconnected the telephone. After inquiring regarding the whereabouts of the daughter, the complainant reached at PGIMS, Rohtak. There, he found his daughter dead in Emergency Ward. No person from her in-laws side was present there. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners were living separately from the deceased and her husband and there was no occasion to meddle in their married life or raise demand for dowry. A reference is made to the site plan (Annexure P2) in which it is submitted that the petitioners are not shown to be residents of the place where the son of the petitioners and his wife are residing. Besides, the husband’s younger brother of the deceased- Bhateri namely Surjit @ Monu who is residing in the said house has and is depicted in the site plan (Annexure P2) been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide order dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P3). It is also submitted that the Sarpanches of six Panchayats have given in writing that the petitioner No.1 has renounced the world. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioners harassed their daughter-in-law in connection with demand for dowry on account of which she CRM No. M-38087 of 2010 [3] died by consuming some poisonous substance. The death is an unnatural one within six years of the marriage of the daughter of the complainant which was solemnized on 6.12.2004. Besides, the same is in connection with demand for dowry. Therefore, the petitioners are liable. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it may be noticed that the prosecution is to establish and prove its case by leading evidence. The petitioners, it is stated, were not residing with their children and were living separately from the place where the incident had occurred and daughter of the complainant had died. The Sarpanches of six villages have stated that petitioner No.1 has renounced the world and that he is not liable. The question whether there was demand for dowry soon before her death is to be considered by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The petitioners are in custody since 28.5.2010. In the facts and circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioners on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jahajjar shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) February 9, 2011 JUDGE amit