JUDGMENT Mr. R.P. Nagrath, J. (Oral):- This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.126 dated 18.5.2013 registered under Sections 304-B/34 IPC Police Station Rania, District Sirsa. 2. The petitioner is unmarried sister of husband of the deceased. The circumstances of the case leading to the death of the deceased who was married just about a few months before the incident are very serious but husband of the deceased and parents of the husband are in custody and also facing trial. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that two private witnesses of the prosecution including complainant were present in the trial Court on 11.11.2013 when chief examination was recorded but cross-examination deferred on the request of defence counsel and even on 11.12.2013 witnesses were not examined as request was made by the defence counsel. Now the case is fixed for 8.1.2014, 9.1.2014 and 10.1.2014. 4. The trial Court should not have accepted the request for adjournment to cross-examine witnesses so leniently in such serious case. That is a matter of serious concern. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, relied upon judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana, [2010(6) Law Herald (SC) 4483 : 2011(1) Marriage L.J. (SC) 574] : 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 69 laying down principle that in such like cases ordinarily Section 302 IPC should be added so that death sentence can be imposed in heinous and barbaric crimes against women. That was appeal filed by the husband of the deceased against the judgement in a case where High Court had reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the husband issued notice to the accused why sentence be not enhanced to life imprisonment. 5. There cannot be any quarrel with the above proposition of law but here is a prayer for bail made by unmarried sister of the husband, who because of her age and environment in family may not be directly responsible for the unfortunate incident. 6. Petitioner is custody since 25.6.2013. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner Poonam. 8. Bail to the satisfaction of trial Court. 9. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.