Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. Application is allowed and order dated 28.03.2007 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda is taken on record. Main Case: Asha Rani has filed the instant petition for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 617 dated 26.12.2006, under Sections 304-B, 302, 315, 498-A, 307, 316, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda. 2. According to the prosecution version, Rakha Rani (since deceased) was married with petitioners son Amrit Pal in September 2005. There were demands of dowry and harassment for the same by the petitioner as well as by her unmarried daughter and also by the husband of the deceased. Ultimately on 26.12.2006, the petitioner caught hair of the deceased and all the three accused i.e. the petitioner, her daughter Sunita and son Amrit Pal dragged the deceased and then Sunita poured kerosene on her and Amrit Pal set her afire. She ultimately succumbed to her burns. However, she made statement to the police, on the basis of which the instant FIR was registered. She also made a separate dying declaration to the same effect before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. The deceased died just after 15 months of her marriage on account of burns suffered in the matrimonial home. Petitioner is mother-inlaw of the deceased. There are specific allegations against her, not only regarding demand of dowry and consequent harassment but also regarding her active participation in the occurrence leading to the death of the deceased. In addition to it, the deceased was also pregnant and obviously, the child in the womb also died with the deceased. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioners co-accused Sunita (her daughter) was granted bail by learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 28.03.2007. However, perusal of the said order reveals that statement was made by the police that Sunita Rani had been declared innocent. On the other hand, challan has already been presented against the present petitioner and Amrit Pal and charge has also been framed. 5. In view thereof, the petitioner cannot claim parity with Sunita Rani. Besides it, learned State counsel also states that application moved by the police for discharge of Sunita Rani has since been rejected. On the other hand, challan has already been presented against the present petitioner and Amrit Pal and charge has also been framed. 5. In view thereof, the petitioner cannot claim parity with Sunita Rani. Besides it, learned State counsel also states that application moved by the police for discharge of Sunita Rani has since been rejected. On the other hand, it is also submitted by learned State counsel that Sunita Rani was declared innocent on the ground that she had gone to take tution at the time of occurrence, but even statement of the tutor has not been recorded in this regard during investigation. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.