CRM No.M-27405 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-6.10.2010 Sukhwinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for respondent No.2. M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J .(oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Sukhwinder Singh (father-in-law of the complainant), has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Mian Singh, Piara Singh and Balbir Kaur, vide FIR No.50 dated 9.8.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Kamboh, District Amritsar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Concisely, according to the prosecution that the marriage of complainant-Charanjit Kaur was solemnized with Mian Singh on 15.11.2007, according to Sikh customs. The parents of the complainant was stated to have given the sufficient dowry articles and golden jewellery etc. beyond their capacity, but the accused party was not satisfied with it. They started demanding more dowry and harassing her. They also demanded a car and Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, the prosecution claimed that the accused treated the complainant with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, CRM No.M-27405 of 2010 2 in the manner described here-in-above. 4. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Tirath Singh, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the complainant and very vague and general allegations are assigned to him in the FIR. Whether the penal provisions of section 498-A IPC are attracted to the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court. The petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed by the husband against the complainant. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as detailed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly CRM No.M-27405 of 2010 3 make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 9. Needless to state that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this respect. 10. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 6.10.2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE