JUDGMENT Harkesh Manuja, J. By way of present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.199 dated 19.07.2020, registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib, wherein the following allegations have been made:- "I had my youngest sister Beant Kaur who had got married with her own consent with Prem Kumar son of Nand Ram resident of Tarmala of our village itself about 1 year ago. My sister Beant Kaur was living with her husband and in-laws family at our village Tarmala itself. Her husband Prem Kumar and in-laws family used to beat and harass her. The entire self-happening of which was told by Beant Kaur to her uncle Major Singh who resides in village Tarmala. On 18.7.2020 at about 9.00 my uncle Major Singh informed me on phone that your sister Beant Kaur who was admitted in hospital since the last few days; her condition is serious, so you reach to the hospital. Upon which, after reaching Tarmala, I enquired through my uncle then I came to know that on 10.7.2020 Prem Kumar son of Nand Ram alias Bhola (husband), Nand Ram alias Bhola (father in law), mother in law and brother Vijay Sagar residents of village Tarmala; the in-laws by scaring and threatening my sister Beant Kaur have forcibly given some poisonous substance to her. During the treatment my sister Beant Kaur has died in the night on 18.07.2020 at about 8:00 p.m." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old lady of 70 years of age with no involvement in the incident in question. He also points out that from the investigation already carried out, no offence is made out against the petitioner as there are no marks relating to force/injury on the body of the deceased as per the post-mortem report. He also points out that the alleged incident took place on 10.07.2020, whereas, the victim died on 18.07.2020 while under treatment, however, during this period, she never got recorded her statement implicating anyone being responsible for the incident. 3. He also points out that the alleged incident took place on 10.07.2020, whereas, the victim died on 18.07.2020 while under treatment, however, during this period, she never got recorded her statement implicating anyone being responsible for the incident. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner while submitting that the petitioner being the mother-in-law was actively involved in the incident in question having forcibly administered poison to the deceased, which was even found as per the chemical examiner report and thus, considering the nature of offence and the allegations levelled against her, she does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the incident in question was took place on 10.07.2020, whereas the deceased remained under treatment till 18.07.2020, however, as per the prosecution, she never got her statement recorded implicating any of the accused including the petitioner and it was only after her death on 18.07.2020, the FIR in question was registered at the instance of brother of the deceased on 19.07.2020, who even did not make any such effort during 10.07.2020 to 18.07.2020. 6. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the deceased was forcibly made to consume some poisonous substance whereas the post-mortem of the deceased no where reconciles the aforesaid allegations; there being no use of force/injury on the body of the deceased being reflected from the post-mortem. Moreover, the complainant even appeared as PW-1 and in his cross-examination, he went on to say that the deceased was got admitted in the hospital by her husband only and PW-1 never paid any expenses of medical treatment, which means that the medical expenses was borne by the husband of the deceased or the family members. The relevant extract from the cross-examination of PW-1- complainant is reproduced hereunder:- ".....I came to know on my arrival at village Tarmala that on 10.07.2020, Beant Kaur was admitted in National Clinic Abohar by Prem Kumar. I do no know whether all the expenses of her treatment at National Clinic Abohar were borne by Prem Kumar and his family. I had not paid any expenses of the medical treatment at National Clinic, Abohar...." 7. I do no know whether all the expenses of her treatment at National Clinic Abohar were borne by Prem Kumar and his family. I had not paid any expenses of the medical treatment at National Clinic, Abohar...." 7. In his cross-examination, complainant-PW-1 even deposed that no complaint was ever made to any of the authorities as regards any harassment, beatings or maltreatment suffered by Beant Kaur at the hands of her husband. 8. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, besides considering the fact that the petitioner, happens to be an old lady of 70 years and other co-accused i.e. her husband and son have been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2023, passed in CRM-M-16733- 2023 and order dated 21.02.2024 passed in CRM-M-58365-2023, respectively, in the humble opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, at this stage once the investigation is already over. 9. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation and would come present as and when called for and in the event of arrest, she shall be admitted to interim bail on her furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 10. List on 18.03.2024.