IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.02.2025 Mukesh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate, for the complainant.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case arising from FIR No.139 dated 29.03.2022 registered under Sections 498-A/406/506/304-B/307/34 IPC at Police Station Gadpuri, District Palwal.

2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 28.03.2022 information was received at Police Post from Police Control Room, Palwal that Kusum wife of Mukesh (present petitioner), resident of village Janoli is admitted in Government Hospital, Palwal, on account of burn injuries. On receiving information, police party went to the hospital and received the rukka. The injured had been referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. On 29.03.2022, complainant Durga met the Incharge Police Post Baghola and moved his complaint. He submitted that his younger daughter Kusum was married to petitioner-Mukesh for the last 8 years. The petitioner used to harass her from the time of marriage and demanded money. He was addicted to alcohol. The complainant also tried to counsel the accused several times, but to no effect. On 28.03.2022, petitioner demanded money from Kusum for purchasing liquor. When she did not give the same, the petitioner took out petrol from his motorcycle and set on fire Kusum. Apart from petitioner, his father Shyam and brother Krishna are also involved in the offence. Earlier also, they had threatened to kill Kusum. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, present FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of unnatural death of his wife after eight years of marriage. He further contended that there were no allegations of any demand of dowry soon before the death of wife of the petitioner. He further contended that complainant i.e. father of the deceased and mother of the deceased, while appearing as PW1 and PW3, respectively have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. He further contended that the alleged incident took place on 28.03.2022 and wife of the petitioner died on 24.04.2022 in hospital. Learned counsel while relying upon the FSL report contended that hydrocarbons of petroleum were not detected on exhibits sent for examination, therefore, prosecution has failed to prove its case that petitioner poured petrol on the deceased and later set her on fire. He further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 23.04.2022; the trial is going at snail’s pace, therefore, it will take a considerable time to conclude; no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars during trial, therefore, he may be granted the concession of regular bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3)

RCR(Criminal) 494

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. She contended that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of pouring petrol on her wife and setting her on fire and the said incident was witnessed by his minor daughter and she has supported the prosecution version. Therefore, in this heinous crime of pouring petrol on her wife and setting her on fire, petitioner is not entitled for grant of regular bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The allegation against the petitioner is that he poured petrol on his wife and set her on fire as a result of which she died in hospital