Sushila v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : May 09, 2019 Sushila ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh Present :

Mr. SS Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG Haryana for the State with ASI Hari Parkash Mr. MS Dua, Advocate, for the complainant Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner Sushila has come up for regular bail in this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed in case bearing FIR No. 218 dated 28.4.2018 under Sections 304-B, 120-B IPC (Section 302 IPC was subsequently added), Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

The allegations have been levelled by complainant unfortunate father Dilraj of deceased Kirti. The allegations in brief

-2are that the marriage between Himanshu and the deceased was solemnized on 30.11.2017 and after few days of the marriage the deceased was beaten up on account of demand of dowry and which fact was confided by the deceased in her parents. On 27.4.2018, the complainant received call from accused Himanshu demanding a motorcycle or in lieu of it money and gave a deadline. On the day of the occurrence, the complainant received telephonic call from the present petitioner Sushila mother of Himanshu that the daughter of the complainant was being rushed to the hospital and on arrival of the family of the deceased, they found that the deceased has been murdered leading to registration of the present case and arrest of the petitioner.

Sh. SS Mor, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased and that no specific role is attributed to her and has sought to argue that even in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, no poison was detected and it was argued that it was a natural death. Learned State counsel assisted by ASI Hari Parkash and Mr. MS Dua, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there are specific allegations of harassment and torture upon the accused side and that the post mortem report shows certain injuries of thorax region and therefore, there is every likelihood of death

-3being un-natural and that too within a small period of marriage when there are allegations of demand of dowry entails that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Going through the submissions, it is the admitted stand of the two sides that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 30.11.2017 and the death has come about on 28.4.2018 within a few months of this marriage. There are clear-cut allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty towards the deceased by the accused family including the petitioner. The post mortem report placed on the record shows three injuries on the thorax of the dead body and thus, in the light of the allegations and the total inability of the petitioner to explain the circumstances leading to this death at the matrimonial home of the deceased are suggestive that all is not well as to the conduct of the accused in-laws. Since the investigations admittedly are at crucial stage, allowing the petitioner bail at this juncture is not called for. This Court is not inclined to allow bail and the present petition being without any merit stands dismissed at this stage.

( Fateh Deep Singh ) May 09, 2019 Judge 'tiwana'

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No Whether Reportable ?

Yes/No