Crl.Misc. No.M-11450 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-11450 of 2011 . Date of decision: July 08, 2011. Chandan. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT G.P.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the complainant. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). This order will dispose of the present application for the grant of pre-arrest bail filed by the husband alleging that the parents of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge. He has placed strong reliance upon Annexure P-2, an order passed by the Sub Inspector, In charge, Women Cell, Rewari, showing that the allegations levelled in the complaint regarding the demand of dowry have been found to be false. The prosecution was launched on the basis of a complaint filed in the Court. The FIR was registered as per the provisions of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. There are specific . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-11450 of 2011 allegations levelled against the husband of having maltreated the complainant-wife in the complaint to the effect that on 09.10.2010, the accused had locked the complainant in a room and did not give her food for two days and he along with his family members had made an attempt to misbehave with her, abused her and threatened to kill her. The complainant Babli has mentioned in the complaint that when the Panchayat was convened for settlement of the matter, the petitioner and his family members were able to get a false case registered against her father. No action was taken by the police despite the complaint submitted by the complainant. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner cannot seek parity with his parents who have been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail as there are specific allegations against him of having maltreated the complainant and having misappropriated the dowry articles. Mere one line of the In charge of Women Cell that on enquiry of the complaint, no case of demand of dowry was found to be made out is not sufficient enough to absolve the petitioner of the liability. He being husband has, prima facie, failed to fairly maintain the complainant. There does not appear to be any reason for falsely implicating the petitioner and his family members. No ground is made out for granting the concession of pre-arrest bail in the case as it appears to be a case where recoveries are yet to be effected as per the statement made by the . . . 2 Crl.Misc. No.M-11450 of 2011 Investigating Office Gyarshi Lal. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 08, 2011. rka . . . 3