IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 13275 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: July 12, 2011.
Satbir.
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail pending trial in FIR No.427
dated 11.08.2010 under Sections 304-B/498A read with Section 34 IPC,
Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
CRM No.M-13275 of 2011 2
This is third bail application. First bail application was got
dismissed as withdrawn on 17.12.2010. Second bail application was also got
dismissed as withdrawn on 31.01.2011.
Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he is
father-in-law of deceased -Smt.Gianwati, whose marriage was solemnized on
20.02.2007 with co-accused -Rohtash i.e. son of present petitioner. Out of
the wedlock two sons, namely, Pawan aged 2 years and Shalok aged 1 year
were born. There are also allegations that she used to be harassed by her
husband Rohtash, father-in-law Satbir and mother-in-law Premwati for
bringing less dowry and they used to torture her. Hence, it was alleged that
she was killed by all the three accused including the present petitioner by
poisoning. As per medical evidence, cause of death of Smt.Gianwati is
poisoning and she died in the house of her in-laws after three years of her
marriage leaving behind two small children. She used to reside in joint
family. Initially challan was filed against the petitioner and his son as co-
accused Smt.Premwati i.e. wife of the petitioner remained absconding. Trial
commenced against petitioner and his son and major portion of the
prosecution evidence was already recorded when Smt.Premwati surrendered
and hence, supplementary challan was filed against her and thereafter her
case was consolidated alongwith with the present case and the charges for
offence under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC in the alternative
under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC besides Section 498A IPC
were framed against the accused. Case is fixed for evidence of prosecution
for 2/3-9-2011. Accused Smt.Premwati has already been granted regular bail
by learned trial Court. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that
CRM No.M-13275 of 2011 3
there is any delay on the part of prosecution. Rather delay in the trial has
occurred as co-accused, Smt.Premwati remained absconding and could not be
arrested.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there was no previous allegation of demand of dowry and that the allegation
was made for the first time by way of present complaint. It has also been
contended that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 11.08.2010.
Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the
respondent-State on the ground that material witnesses are yet to be
examined and that the trial could not be concluded as co-accused remained
absconding.
In view of serious allegations against the petitioner-accused as
discussed above, and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I
am of the view that it is not such a case in which concession of regular bail
should be granted to the accused at this stage. There is no merit in the instant
application for bail filed by Satbir accused. Hence, the same is, hereby,
dismissed.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA )
July 12, 2011. JUDGE
‘om’