Criminal Misc. No. M-18913 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-18913 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.6.2011 Sidho Devi .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R.P. Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The mother-in-law has filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 25 dated 26.3.2011 under Sections 406, 498- A, 323 IPC, Police Station Naggal, District Ambala. The marriage of the complainant was solemnised with the son of the petitioner on 7.12.2008. The complainant is admittedly living with her parents since September, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that son of the petitioner had gone to his in-laws' house to bring his wife back on 15.4.2010, however, did not return back. A DDR was got registered on 3.5.2010. The police did not take any action. The present FIR was got registered by the complainant only on 26.3.2011 with totally vague allegations. Husband of the petitioner was arrested and has been released on regular bail. The petitioner is herself a sufferer as on account of matrimonial dispute, even her son is missing and she has all apprehension that the complainant and her family members are responsible for the same. Criminal Misc. No. M-18913 of 2011 [2] On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected. However, the facts that the son of the petitioner is missing and her husband was arrested and has been released on regular bail, are not disputed. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, I find merit in the present petition. Considering the fact that the complaint was filed more than 1-1/2 years after the complainant left the matrimonial home and further the husband of the complainant being already missing for the last one year and that husband of the petitioner having been arrested and released on regular bail, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and she deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. It is directed that in case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. She shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called upon for investigation. She shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.6.2011 mk