JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) - Petitioner-Jasvir Singh son of Bhagwan Singh (father-in-law), has directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his wife Amarjit Kaur(mother-in-law) and son & main accused Suraj Singh(husband) of Jyoti Kaur (deceased), vide FIR No.66 dated 02.08.2013, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. The pith and substance of the prosecution version is that, the marriage of Jyoti Kaur, younger sister of complainant-Jaspreet Singh, was solemnized with main accused Suraj Singh on 26.02.2012, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. One gold ring weighing 4 gms, one pair of ear rings weighing half tola were given to his sister Jyoti Kaur, whereas, one gold ring weighing 4½ gms. was given to Suraj Singh (husband) at the time of marriage, besides, 12 ladies suits. Nothing else was given to him(petitioner). 5. According to the prosecution, Jyoti Kaur died unnatural death within a period of 1½ years of her marriage and it was claimed that soon before her death, she was treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry by the accused. Very vague and general allegations are assigned that Suraj(husband) and other co-accused demanded an amount of Rs.2 lac from the deceased. Neither any specific instance of cruelty or demand nor any particular role is attributed to the present petitioner. All the main allegations of cruelty and demand of Rs.2 lac are assigned to main accused Suraj Singh(non-petitioner). As to whether the general simple demand of Rs.2 lac by all the accused, will attract the penal provision of Section 304-B IPC against the petitioner, particularly when, he was not going to be directly benefitted from such demand, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. In that eventuality, the possibility of false implication of the petitioner in this case by the complainant(brother of the deceased), cannot be ruled out, at this stage. In that eventuality, the possibility of false implication of the petitioner in this case by the complainant(brother of the deceased), cannot be ruled out, at this stage. Above all, it is not a matter of dispute that Amarjit Kaur, similarly situated co-accused and wife of the petitioner, was granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, by virtue of order dated 20.05.2014, rendered in CRM No.M-8128 of 2014. Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of regular bail to the present petitioner as well under the similar set of circumstances. 6. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 03.08.2013. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————