IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.50050-M of 2007 Date of Order: 25.03.2008 Vijayant Kumar @ Gori ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. V.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL J. Prayer in the present petition filed by the husband is for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.189 dated 01.10.2007 under Sections 498-A/506 IPC registered at Police Station City Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur. On 01.02.2008 recording the contentions of the parties, this Court noticed the fact stated by the complainant that she along with her minor male child was shunted out from the matrimonial home and still maintenance was not being paid to her. The offer of the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as maintenance to the complainant was found to be meager. Even today, learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the most a sum of Rs.2000/- could be paid to the complainant as the petitioner is unemployed. The factum of petitioner being unemployed has been controverted by the complainant by filing affidavit dated 18.02.2008 stating therein that petitioner is well established in business with his father dealing in blankets and clothes. However, this Court would not be able to record a finding of fact in the present proceedings regarding the income of the Criminal Misc. No.50050-M of 2007 -2- petitioner. Accordingly while accepting the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner as an interim measure, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as maintenance to complainant Shivani wife of the petitioner. However, that shall be subject to revision, in case any proceedings for the same are initiated by her for grant of maintenance and the amount so paid by the petitioner shall be adjustable towards the amount so determined in those proceedings. As far as the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is concerned, there are specific allegations in the FIR against the petitioner that there was a demand of dowry and threat to kill the complainant. Keeping that in view and without commenting upon the merit thereof as such, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. March 25, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) nt JUDGE