Crl. Misc. No.M-17120 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-17120 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 31, 2010 Pooja and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.V.K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. Mr.A.K. Manaise, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners Pooja, Radhe Sham, Sharda Rani and Babita have filed this petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Ravi Kumar alleging that his mother Shanti Devi having been fed up with the threats of Pooja, Babita, Radhe Sham and Sharda Rani had committed suicide. Crl. Misc. No.M-17120 of 2010 [2] The case of the prosecution is that the wife of the complainant had been taken away by his sister-in-law (Bhabhi), namely, Babita wife of Chander Shekhar, co-brother i.e. husband of his sister-in-law, namely, Radhey Sham and his wife Sharda Rani by saying that Pooja will be sent back to her matrimonial home when Shanti Devi would die. One day prior to the day of commission of suicide of Shanti Devi, Babita, petitioner No.4, Radhe Sham, petitioner No.2, Sharda Rani, petitioner No.3 alongwith Vijay Kumar and petitioner No.1 Pooja had come to the house of the complainant to taunt that she was still alive. They also used indecent language against the dignity of the mother of the complainant as such on February 1, 2010, she had committed suicide by consuming poison. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioner No.1- Pooja had undergone abortion for a number of times regarding which she has got documentary evidence and that petitioner No.1 had filed a complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband complainant- Ravi Kumar and others, therefore, she has been falsely implicated. Counsel for the petitioners has further contended that all the sisters of Pooja have been involved in the case on account of matrimonial dispute of the complainant with Pooja. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record. The involvement of all the petitioners is apparent from the investigation which has already been conducted. It will be premature to form an opinion that all the family members have been roped in falsely only because Pooja, petitioner No.1 had filed a complaint under the Protection of Crl. Misc. No.M-17120 of 2010 [3] Women from Domestic Violence Act against the complainant. The investigation appears to be at initial stage. The role attributed to all the petitioners is yet to be finally determined before presentation of challan. No ground is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Dismissed. Petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 being ladies may seek the benefit of provisions of Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioners to seek the concession of regular bail. August 31, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE