Crl. Misc. No.M-8680 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-8680 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 25, 2011 Des Raj and another …..Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek concession of pre-arrest bail in a case at the instance of Anita Sharma, submitted in the Court of CJM, Ambala, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On the directions of the Court, the FIR was registered against the petitioners and their son. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. Crl. Misc. No.M-8680 of 2011 [2] An attempt was made for reconciliation of the matter by referring the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation of Centre. It appears that no amicable settlement could be arrived at. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition for pre- arrest bail inter-alia on the ground that there are allegations of torture against the petitioners and their son which had resulted in abortion of the girl on December 23, 2010. There is an MLR obtained by the investigating agency on February 13, 2010. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, State counsel and the counsel for the complainant. Counsel for the State, on instructions of ASI Tejbir Singh, informs that all the articles which are part of the list attached with the complaint, have already been recovered. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint indicates that the main allegation of cruelty resulting in abortion is against the son of the petitioners, who has been arrested and released on bail. It will not be appropriate at this stage to enter into the disputed question of controversy whether the entire dowry articles have been recovered and handed over to the complainant but in the interest of justice it is considered that the petitioners can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail subject to condition that the complainant is compensated for an approximate tentative price of the articles which are yet to be recovered. The complainant’s father present in the Court has urged that no doubt, the jewellery articles have been recovered but the other dowry articles are not in good condition and are yet to be recovered. Crl. Misc. No.M-8680 of 2011 [3] Since the FIR has been filed in complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the recoveries have already been effected, the petition can be allowed. Petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the following conditions:- i) that the petitioners will join investigation as and when required by the police; ii) they will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner; iii) petitioners will pay a total sum of `1 lac in lieu of the disputed articles which are claimed by the complainant but have not been recovered, by September 24, 2011. A bank draft in the name of complainant will be handed over to the investigating officer who will handover the same to the complainant without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners or the complainant; and iv) that the petitioners will not leave India without the permission of the Court. July 25, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE