In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-19450 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:12.1.2011 Sanjeev Kaul and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana ....Respondent .... Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harmeet Singh Deol, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them by Smt. Anubha wife of Sanjeev Kaur (petitioner No.1) for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Smt. Anubha. It is alleged by the complainant-Anubha that her marriage was solemnized on 4.11.2003 with Sanjeev Kaul (petitioner No.1) at Hotel Madhubana, Mathura (U.P.). Sanjeev Kaul (petitioner No.1) is the husband of the complainant while Madhu Kaul (petitioner No.2) is the mother-in-law of the complainant. Various articles as mentioned in the FIR which included 30 pairs of ear rings, two gems rings gold, two chain sets, one necklace weighing 40 grams, one pearl set, one moti mala, 50 gift items and Cr. Misc. No.M-19450 of 2009 [2] `20,000/- in cash were given at the time of marriage. Besides, `50,000/- in cash and other gift items were given after a son, namely, Kushagra was born on 28.11.2004. The articles and cash were handed over to the petitioners in dowry and a total sum of `8 Lacs were given at the time of marriage. It is submitted by the complainant that she was subjected to cruel behavior and mal-treatment as the accused were not satisfied with the dowry. They were demanding a Santro car; besides, `2 Lacs in cash. It was stated that the marriage was not solemnized as per their status. The petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 21.7.2009. Thereafter, the case has been adjourned from time to time. In terms of order dated 22.9.2009, the complainant was directed to file an affidavit to the effect that the dowry articles were not with her and were in possession of the petitioners. The complainant has deposed an affidavit dated 12.10.2009 in which it is inter alia stated that the dowry articles were entrusted to the accused and the articles of Streedhana were still lying with the accused and were yet to be recovered. The said assertion, it is submitted, also finds support from the order dated 11.7.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide his order dated 11.7.2009 (Annexure-P.3), has observed that no ground for anticipatory bail was made out in favour of the petitioners as even heavy dowry goods and articles of Streedhana are yet to be recovered. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that the petitioners though have been appearing before the Investigating Officer but were not co-operating in getting the dowry articles and Streedhana recovered which are quite Cr. Misc. No.M-19450 of 2009 [3] substantial. Therefore, according to them the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for effecting the recovery. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, has submitted that the matter has been settled with the complainant for `4 Lacs and he is willing to pay `1 Lac more. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, submits that the matter was settled on payment of `4 Lacs but the dowry articles and Streedhana of the complainant was to be given to her which has still not been given. It may be noticed that the matrimonial dispute is primarily between Sanjeev Kaul (petitioner No.1) and his wife Smt. Anubha-complainant. Madhu Kaul (petitioner No.2)) is the mother-in- law of the complainant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners she has been residing separately and was, in any case, not entrusted with the dowry articles. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the pre-arrest bail qua Madhu Kaul (petitioner No.2) is made absolute. However, the same is dismissed qua petitioner No.1-Sanjeev Kaul. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed qua Sanjeev Kaul (petitioner No.1), however, the interim bail granted to Madhu Kaul (petitioner No.2) vide order dated 21.7.2009 is made absolute. January 12, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*