Criminal Misc. No. M-24704 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc.No. 48943 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No. M-24704 of 2010 Date of decision:- 30.9.2010 Rajinder Kumar @ Sonu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-25197 of 2010 Sham Lal and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the applicant-complainant. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) Criminal Misc. No.48943 of 2010 It has been stated by learned counsel for the applicant- complainant that he does not want to press this application. Criminal miscellaneous stands dismissed as withdrawn. Criminal Misc. No.M-24704 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No.M-15197 of 2010 Criminal Misc. No. M-24704 of 2010 -2- Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.107 dated 13.5.2010, under Section 304-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Kot Kapura, District Faridkot. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners Sham Lal and Kanta Rani are parents in law whereas petitioner Rajinder Kumar @ Sonu is brother of husband of deceased. Further contended that in fact deceased was being harassed by her parents, as is clear from the Panchayatnama Annexure P-1, Application given by the deceased to Superintendent of Police, City Bathinda Annexure P-2, statement given by deceased before the police dated 15.9.2008 Annexure P-3, application given by the husband to Senior Superintendent of Police Faridkot dated 12.12.2008 Annexure P-4, another application given by husband to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda dated 10.3.2009 Annexure P-5, affidavit given by deceased dated 18.9.2009 Annexure P-6 and other statement suffered by deceased before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, dated 05.10.2009 Annexure P-7, letter written by deceased addresses to her husband Annexure P-8. Further contended that husband has already been arrested, however, present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case as there is tendency to rope in all the members of family in such type of cases. It has been contended by learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant that Smt. Deepika died unnatural death in the house of petitioners just within 2½ years of marriage. Further contended that there are specific allegations in the FIR against the petitioners Sham Lal and Kanta Rani parents-in-law of deceased for giving her beatings on account of dowry. Deceased told her father i.e. complainant before death, that her husband Ashwani Kumar and her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to beat her and used to demand dowry and that hence the same becomes Criminal Misc. No. M-24704 of 2010 -3- admissible as dying declaration of deceased given to her father. Further contended that so far as Annexures P-1 to P-8 are concerned, the same are just within two or three months of marriage. Further contended that Annexure P-1 is panchayatnama/compromise after 2-3 months of marriage and rather it shows that relation between deceased and her in-laws were not cordial since the very beginning of her marriage. Further contended that Annexure P-2, which is dated 06.9.2008 was also got signed by husband of the deceased and that she might have signed the same in the hope that things may improve with the passage of time. Further contended that Annexure P-4 to P-5 were given by co-accused i.e. husband of the deceased. Further contended that Annexure P-6 was also got signed by husband of deceased when she was residing with her parents. Further contended that Annexure P-8 as per original diary taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, is dated 25.2.2008 i.e. after few months of marriage. It is also contended that matter was inquired into by the Women Cell, Bathinda and it came during inquiry that petitioners Sham Lal and Kanta Rani parents-in-law of deceased used to harass her on account of dowry. I have considered all the aforementioned facts. So far as petitioners Sham Lal and Kanta Rani parents-in- laws are concerned there are specific allegations against them for harassing the deceased. Smt. Deepika died just after 2-½ years of marriage in the house of petitioners. In view of these facts, it is not such a case, in which ex-traordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused Sham Lal and Kanta Rani. So far as petitioner-accused Rajinder Kumar @ Sonu is concerned, he is brother of husband of deceased. There are no specific allegations against him, hence, he deserves concession of anticipatory bail. In view of this fact, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition filed by petitioner-accused Rajinder Kumar @ Sonu for anticipatory bail is accepted and order dated 25.8.2010, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.M-24704 of 2010, granting interim bail to the petitioner-accused Rajinder Criminal Misc. No. M-24704 of 2010 -4- Kumar @ Sonu, is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. So far as petitioner-accused Sham Lal and Kanta Rani are concerned, there is no merit in their application, hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition for anticipatory bail to the petitioners-accused Sham Lal and Kanta Rani, is dismissed. Interim order dated 30.8.2010, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-25197 of 2010, granting interim bail to the petitioners-accused Sham Lal and Kanta Rani, is vacated. September 30, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE