IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-10706 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 06, 2011. Mandeep Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.B.S.Bitta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.N.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the complainant. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The prayer in this application is to release the petitioners on regular bail in case FIR No.18 dated 1.2.2011, Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana, registered under Sections 365/366/452/324/427/323/506/148/ 149 IPC. Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are real brothers and petitioner No.3 is their young unmarried sister. The above stated FIR has been registered on the complaint made by Jaspal Kaur, inter-alia, alleging that his daughter Maninder Kaur, aged about 28 years, who is M.A.B.Ed. and running a school alongwith her father, was engaged with petitioner No.1 and the Crl.Misc.Nos.M-10706 of 2011 [2] marriage was decided to be solemnized on 11.2.2011. However, a few days before the scheduled date of marriage, they approached the family of the petitioners to postpone the marriage as the son of the complainant who was in Australia could not get the visa. The said request of postponement of the marriage is alleged to have created a doubt in the minds of the petitioners as if the engagement would be broken. It is alleged that the petitioners alongwith 6-7 other associates forcibly entered the house of the complainant and besides damaging various properties, took away her daughter (Maninder Kaur) forcibly. The petitioners while seeking bail, on the other hand, claim that petitioner No.1 is 32 years old and the complainant's daughter is 28 years old and both of them have decided to marry and a “Court Marriage Deed” was also got prepared. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Section 366 has also been added later on. Learned State counsel informs that the investigation is complete and the challan has been presented. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, though it appears that no reliance needs to be placed at this stage on the documents like the Court Marriage Deed which might not have any legal sanctity, however, having regard to the fact that the investigation is complete and challan has been presented and petitioners Nos.2 & 3 have been implicated merely being the brother and sister of petitioner No.1, the petition qua petitioner Nos.2 & 3 is allowed and without expressing any views on the merits of the Crl.Misc.Nos.M-10706 of 2011 [3] case, petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are ordered to be released on bail on furnishing the bail bonds/surety bonds by them to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, it appears desirable to consider his request for bail after the complainant and the alleged victim Maninder Kaur are examined as first and second prosecution witnesses. The petition qua petitioner No.1 is dismissed at this stage. Dasti. May 06, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE