IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-24113 of 2009 Date of decision : November 10, 2009 Mahinder Kaur alias Mahindro ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Mahinder Kaur alias Mahindro has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 30 dated 18.3.2009 under sections 306, 120-B IPC, Police Station Machiwara, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner and his co-accused had been harassing the deceased leading to her suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was residing separately from the deceased and her husband. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Charanjit Singh, contended that the petitioner has been residing in the same house as the deceased and her husband although in different portion. It is also the Criminal Misc. No. M-24113 of 2009 -2- version of the petitioner herself. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Chanchal Kumar brother of husband of the deceased has been granted anticipatory bail. However, brother-in-law of the deceased stood on a different footing vis-a-vis mother-in-law. In fact, husband of the deceased had gone abroad after marriage and stayed abroad for ten years. During that period, the deceased was obviously under the control of the petitioner. There are specific allegations against the petitioner. On the preceding date, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that age of the petitioner is 63 years. Adjournment was granted on request of petitioner's counsel to place on record material to depict the age of the petitioner. However, no such material has been placed on record. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions stated that as per voter identity card, age of the petitioner as of today comes to about 51 years. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 10, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'