Crl. Misc. No. M-30441 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-30441 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 16, 2011 Lt. Col. Raj Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Surinder Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife Seema. The marriage was solemnized on March 25, 1991. As per the allegations in the FIR, on July 24, 2010, when the complainant came from her parental house she was hold by her daughter that the petitioner had come and was sitting with his parents. On coming to know about the arrival of petitioner, Crl. Misc. No. M-30441 of 2010 [2] the complainant had bolted the bed room fearing that she would be given beatings. Complainant lives on the first floor whereas the parents of the petitioner stay on the ground floor. The complainant was abused by her father-in-law and she was beaten by him. The petitioner alongwith his mother and grand-mother had also made an attempt to beat the complainant. Father-in-law of the complainant allegedly caught-hold of her neck. The petitioner assisted his father to give beatings to her. The complainant saved her life by running away from the spot. As per the allegations in the FIR, it is not a case of demand of dowry or misappropriation of the dowry articles of the complainant. The claim of the petitioner is that complainant has got an erratic behaviour and she was diagnosed in October 1999 as patient of mental disorder Paranoid Shizophrenia. She remained under the observations of the Doctors and Army Hospital, Delhi. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that he is ready to take the complainant at the family station. She is residing on the first floor of the house which is occupied on the ground floor by the parents of the petitioner. The complainant was heard in person. Her grievance is that the petitioner has got a affair with a lady officer. Few photographs of the said lady were shown in the Court by her. She claimed that her daughter had been forcibly kept at the place of posting. The complainant also seems to have filed an application alleging plural marriage by the petitioner. Her complaint has been looked into and found false by the police. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that a fixed maintenance is being paid by the petitioner to the complainant regularly. Crl. Misc. No. M-30441 of 2010 [3] After hearing the petitioner and the complainant, this Court is of the firm opinion that the allegations of the complainant regarding bigamy and non-payment of maintenance are not part of the FIR but have been levelled during the course of personal hearing. The rights of maintenance have been taken care of by providing her fixed maintenance every month. Allegation of bigamy has not been substantiated. The grievance of the complainant is that petitioner being an Army Officer is able to misuse his position to the disadvantage of the complainant. I do not find any force in the said allegation of the complainant. The allegations levelled by the complainant are different than the allegations as mentioned in the FIR. I do not find any force in the said contention of counsel for the complainant that the allegations levelled by her had not been recorded or that a wrong FIR has been registered. The petitioner belongs to a disciplined force where the allegations of bigamy or cruelty to wife are treated as serious allegations and are detriment to the service of an officer besides this, there are no allegations that any dowry article of the complainant has been misappropriated. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has been provided an Hon’ble place to reside on the first floor in the matrimonial home at Gurgaon where the parents of the petitioners are residing on the ground floor. The allegations of the complainant against the petitioner and his family members, as per the FIR, do not warrant the custodial interrogation or arrest of the petitioner. The petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting Crl. Misc. No. M-30441 of 2010 [4] officer subject to the conditions that he will join investigation as and when required by the police and that he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner. December 16, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE