In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM Nos.43035 of 2009 and CRM-M 23768 of 2009 Decided on Aug 27,2009. Kamal and another -- Petitioners vs. The State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.S.Sihota,Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Ashok Sharma,Advocate,for the petitioners Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: CRM No.43035 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M237678 of 2009 The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.131 dated 09.6.2009 under Sections 498-A/ 304-B IPC at Police Station, Tauru, District Mewat. The allegations contained in the FIR are that Smt.Jayada (since deceased) was married to Rafiq 3 ½ years ago. According to the complainant, at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given, but still there was a demand of Maruti Car which was beyond the capacity of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant received a telephonic call from Jayada (deceased) that her husband Rafiq, father-in-law Kamal and mother-in-law Bilkish, brothers -in-law Tofak and Arif, sisters-in -law CRM-M 23768 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Arsheeda and Sajjo are beating and harassing her for not bringing Maruti Car and also that they would kill her by administering poison. The complainant brought her daughter back with him where she stayed in her parental house for about nine months and thereafter with her in-laws for about 20 days. It is alleged that on 08.6.2009, the complainant received information that Rafiq, Kamal, Bilkish, Tofak,Arif, Arsheeda and Sajjo have jointly administered poison to his daughter, who has died. It is alleged that the complainant went to her in-laws' house accompanying the villagers and found that his daughter was lying dead on the cot. Before coming to this Court, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Nuh, on 06.8.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is alleged that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners as it has been made against all the seven accused. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no doubt that Jayada (deceased) had died after about 3-½ years of her marriage in her in-laws' house. There are allegations that the deceased was beaten and tortured in pursuance of demand of Maruti Car and dowry. Thus, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and as such the same is hereby dismissed. Aug 27,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge