Crl.M.No.31222-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.31222-M of 2010 Date of Order: 30.11.2010 Amit Nanda .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the complainant. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of husband of complainant-Neha, in case FIR No.132 dated 6.9.2010 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, P.S Division No.1, Jalandhar. It is stated that the petitioner-husband is Matriculate and the complainant-wife is M.A in English and there were serious temperamental differences between the two. It is further submitted that the petitioner to save his marriage had started residing separately along with his wife in a separate accommodation from his family members since March 2010 and still the complainant-wife left her matrimonial home leaving behind her young girl child. It is further contended by learned counsel that the FIR has been lodged with entirely false allegations and further during investigation, the entire dowry articles have been returned. While granting interim bail, this Court had also directed the Crl.M.No.31222-M of 2010 #2# husband and the wife to be present in court to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. At the time of hearing today, an offer of Rs.8 lacs for one time settlement was made on behalf of the petitioner, which was declined by the complainant-wife. The custody of the minor child was also declined by the complainant wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an officer of the rank of Additional Deputy Commissioner has inquired into the matter with regard to non-return of the dowry including gold articles and in his report found that the allegations are incorrect. Learned State counsel and the counsel for the complainant state that gold ornaments are yet to be recovered. Learned state counsel is, however, unable to controvert the submissions. He concedes that the petitioner has joined investigation. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and keeping in view the fact that an officer of the rank of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police has found that the dowry articles have been returned, in my opinion, no useful purpose will be achieved in denying the petitioner the concession of pre arrest bail. In view of the above, interim protection/pre arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.10.2010 passed by this Court is made absolute. Petition stands disposed of. November 30, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE