PAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Criminal Misc. No. 16843-M of 1998 whereby Smt. Par Kaur has prayed for the grant of bail to her in case FIR 49 dated 12.6.1998 under Section 304-B IPC of Police Station, Bholath District Kapurthala.

(2.) ACCORDING to Munsha Singh, who is lodger of the FIR, his daughter Pritpal Kaur was married to Daler Singh on 10.10.1997. He gave dowry according to his capacity. After one month of marriage, her mother-in-law Par Kaur and sister-in-law Satya alias Satto and husband Daler Singh began giving her beatings saying that she had not brought adequate dowry and that she had not given them rings and karas. They left his daughter at his house about four months prior to 12.6.1998. He took along one Gurdeep Singh Ex-Sarpanch and left his daughter at the house of her in-laws. Thereafter, his daughter's husband Daler Singh was commenting upon his daughter that people give car etc. to their daughters in dowry and why she had not brought car. His daughter brought to the notice of the mediator Sh. Atma Singh that her husband was asking her to bring car. On 2/3.6.1998 sister-in-law of his daughter came to her maternal uncle on the occasion of death anniversary of Sant Baba Prem Singh. That day his daughter's mother-in-law Par Kaur, sister-in-law Satya alias Satto and Daler Singh gave her beatings and asked for more dowry. He brought this fact to the notice of Atma Singh that they are causing mental and physical cruelty to his daughter for not bringing dowry to their satisfaction. Atma Singh went to his daughter's husband and mother-in-law whom they told that she had brought inadequate dowry, and therefore, they were not going to keep her in the matrimonial home and will kill her one day. Thereafter, Atma Singh went to his house. On 12.6.1998 when he and his brother Tulsa Singh were sitting in their house, they got news from Atma Singh that his daughter Pritpal Kaur had died. Matter was reported to the Police by Munsha Singh on 12.6.1998. On the basis of his statement, the case was registered.

(3.) ON merits, petitioner does not deserve to be granted bail because her name is inextricably connected with her son's name so far as demand for dowry and cruel treatment in consequence of the non-fulfilment of demand for dowry is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an old woman of 80 years. She is suffering from hypertension with left ventricular dysfunction. He has submitted that petitioner is old and infirm. Earlier in 1995 she was diagnosed as HTC IHD Myalgia.