Crl. Misc. No. M-19413 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19413 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 1, 2011 Manoj Aggarwal …..Petitioner Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Narula, Advocate for Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for UT. Mr.S.A. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner is husband of complainant Vandana Jain. He seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of complainant alleging that she was married to petitioner on March 12, 2009. The petitioner and his family members had been taunting the complainant from the very beginning for having brought less dowry. The couple had gone for honeymoon to Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. On return, Crl. Misc. No. M-19413 of 2011 [2] demand of Honda City Car was raised. Demand of flat and cash of Rs.30 lacs was raised. The complainant had joined Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi but she did not get pay for 3/4 months. The petitioner did not pay her even a single penny and asked her to get money from her father. The complainant had been given beatings for demand of dowry. The dowry articles of the complainant had been with-held by the petitioner and his other family members. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both petitioner as well as complainant are Doctors. Being highly educated, the story put-forth by the complainant, on the face of it is improbable. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant had been abusing and maltreating the petitioner. Few photographs have been placed on record to show that he had received injuries at the hands of complainant. It was argued that all the dowry articles and jewellary has already been recovered. Reliance was placed on wrong writing dated September 6, 2010 wherein the complainant had acknowledged that she had carried all the jewellary articles with her. Counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that recoveries of the dowry articles are yet to be effected. The jewellary belonging to the complainant is still with the petitioner. List of gifts and istri dhan was submitted contending that the jewellery items are still lying with the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M-19413 of 2011 [3] The matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of settlement but the parties could not arrive at any compromise. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the complainant at length. The main objection of the complainant to the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is that recoveries are yet to be effected and in case the pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, it will be difficult to effect recoveries. I have also heard the contentions of counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the complainant. The short question which was required to be determined for adjudication of this petition for pre-arrest bail is whether on account of claim of the complainant that recoveries are yet to be effected, the petitioner should be denied the concession of pre-arrest bail? The investigating officer present in the Court did not press whether any recoveries are yet to be effected but it was counsel for the complainant who insisted that number of recoveries are yet to be effected. In order to strike a balance between the life and liberty of the petitioner and the right of the investigating officer to fairly investigate the matter, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to payment of some reasonable amount in lieu of the jewellary articles which are claimed to have not been recovered till date. It will be just in case a tentative price of the said articles be presumed to be approximately Crl. Misc. No. M-19413 of 2011 [4] Rs.4 lacs. The petitioner may pay some reasonable amount to the complainant in lieu of articles yet to be recovered. 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 officer subject to the following conditions:- i) petitioner will join investigation as and when required by the police; ii) he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner; and iii) petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.4 lacs in lieu of the jewellery articles which are yet to be recovered within a period of one month after the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The said amount will be adjustable in case any final settlement is arrived at between the parties. This order will not prejudice the other civil rights of the parties. Sum of Rs.4 lacs will be paid in the shape of bank draft to the complainant either directly or through the investigating officer. In case it is paid directly, a copy of the bank draft will be handed over to the investigating officer for record. In case of violation of any of the conditions, it will be open to the complainant to approach this Court again to seek the cancellation of bail. Crl. Misc. No. M-19413 of 2011 [5] December 1, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE