Cr.Misc. m 28480 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. m 28480 OF 2010 Date of decision:25.11.2010 Arvinder Pal Singh Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. PS. Ahluwalia, Advocate. Mr. KS Pannu, DAG, Pb Mr. Sheery Singla, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner had maltreated her and retained the dowry articles. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased two properties in the name of complainant and the complainant has sold one of the said properties and received a sum of ` 16 lacs and utilized the same. Learned counsel for the complainant has disputed the factum of the property having been purchased by the petitioner. It is claimed by the complainant that the property has been purchased with the money of her father. Taking into consideration the circumstance that two children, born out of the wedlock, are residing with complainant- respondent No.2, it was deemed appropriate to enable the parties to amicably settle the matrimonial discord. The complainant- respondent No.2 has submitted that there are no chances of reconciliation. The complainant, present in the court, has submitted that she wants to reside separately. Cr.Misc. m 28480 OF 2010 2 Learned State counsel has opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail on the ground that certain recoveries are to be made. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner has made earnest endeavour to resume cohabitation as he has filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The sale deeds Annexures P-3 and P-4 indicate that some property in Bijnour (UP) had been purchased in the name of complainant and father of the petitioner. Annexure P-5 is sale deed executed by the complainant, selling her half share in the property. In view of the above circumstances, it appears that it will be debatable during trial whether the complainant had been maltreated for not meeting the demand of dowry. The petitioner has already joined the investigation pursuant to the interim order. There being no chances of any amicable settlement, a sum of ` 20,000/-, which was ordered to be deposited by the petitioner to enable the complainant to meet the travelling and misc. expenses, is ordered to be released to the complainant. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 27.9.2010 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. It is not out of place to mention here that complainant- respondent No.2 had been made a party to bring about some amicable settlement between the petitioner and complainant. In view of the complainant being not ready for any settlement, it is deemed appropriate not to send the matter to Mediation and Reconciliation Centre. The parties may seek separation in accordance with law. November 25 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) Cr.Misc. m 28480 OF 2010 3 TSM JUDGE