CRM No.M-44611 of 2016  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M- 44611 of 2016(OM) Date of Decision: March 23 , 2017. Trilok ...... PETITIONER (s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL Present: Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the complainant. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** LISA GILL, J.
The petitioner prays for bail pending trial in FIR No.95 dated
29.06.2016 under Sections 304B/34/406/498A IPC registered at Police Station
Bahin, District Palwal.
It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in
this case. The petitioner and his wife were living together happily without any
acrimony. It is further contended that the deceased was unwell prior to her
death. The complainant in this case has since been examined. The allegation
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 26-03-2017 13:57:34 :::
CRM No.M-44611 of 2016 
in the FIR that she was subjected to physical abuse is not borne out from the
medical evidence on record. As per the medical evidence, the exact cause of
death could not be ascertained. As per report dated 17.10.2016 of Dr. Shiv
Shankar, General Hospital Palwal, it is opined as under:-
“Answer to the questions asked by you in order are –
1. There is no evidence to suggest any poisoning (negative FSL
report for common poisons).
2. On post-mortem examination, there were no finding which
suggest any disease.
3. After histopathological report, there were no evidence/finding
of heart attack.
4. As FSL report for common poisoning and histopathological
report of heart are negative and there are no injury mark over
body surface. Hence I am of the opinion that exact cause of
death cannot be ascertained. However circumstantial evidence
may be given due consideration (Negative Autopsy).”
It is thus prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of
bail pending trial.
Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant have
opposed this petition while submitting that there are allegations of dowry being
demanded by the accused as well as physical abuse of the deceased. It is
however not denied that the cause of death in this case could not be ascertained
and neither were any injuries found on the person of the deceased.
This matter was adjourned to ensure that the complainant in this
case is examined before the learned trial court. It is informed by learned
counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Abid Hussain, that the
2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 26-03-2017 13:57:35 :::
CRM No.M-44611 of 2016 
complainant has since testified before the learned trial court. Five out of a total
of thirteen prosecution witnesses have been examined. Trial in this case is not
likely to conclude in the near future. Further incarceration of the petitioner in
the facts and circumstances of the case is not called for.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is
likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing
true facts in the Court, if released on bail.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances but without
commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this
petition filed by Trilok is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail
pending trial subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall
be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely
confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.
( LISA GILL ) March 23 , 2017. JUDGE 'om' Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 26-03-2017 13:57:35 :::