SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LETTER received through post was treated as a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and notice was given to the A.G. Punjab for 6.6.1995. Mrs. Kulwant Kaur, Advocate was appointed by this Court to assist the Court. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, the investigating officer of the case has come present in the Court. On this instruction Mr. Masih, learned AAG (P) contends that three persons are involved in a case under Section 304 -B read with Section 34 IPC which happen to be husband, mother -in -law and father -in -law of the deceased Tapasaya. It is in this situation that the learned counsel representing the petitioner has filed an application for grant of bail to all the three accused.

(2.) AFTER reading the FIR, the learned counsel appearing, for the petitioners contends that the allegations made therein at the most fall under 498 -A IPC and not under Section 304 -B of the said Code. This has mainly been argued that there was no demand of dowry as such. In considered view of this court, this point is certainly involved in this case but no opinion whatsoever, at this stage even prima facie can be recorded as it would obviously prejudice either of the parties at the time of trial. Considering the totality of circumstances of this case as also that the petitioners are in judicial lock up since 10 -12 -1994 and the case is now fixed for prosecution evidence on 16.8.1995 on, which date as well there are no chances of the trial to be concluded, Sham Lal and Smt. Kaushalya father -in -law and mother -in -law of the deceased Tapasaya are allowed bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Patiala. The prayer for bail to Jai Kishan petitioner -husband of the deceased is however declined. Order accordingly.