Criminal Misc. No.M-11949 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. 46359 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No.M-11949 of 2010 Date of decision:- 7.9.2010 Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui and another ...Petitioners Versus U.T. Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent-U.T. Chandigarh. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) Criminal Misc.No. 46359 of 2010 Requests for placing on record Annexures P-4 to P-11. Application is allowed and documents Annexures P-4 to P-11 are taken on record. Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Criminal Misc. No.M-11949 of 2010 The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.53 dated 17.3.2010, under Sections 406,498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. The brief facts are that petitioners are parents in law of complainant. Her marriage was performed with son of the petitioners on 25.11.2006 at Lucknow. Out of the said wedlock a child was also Criminal Misc. No.M-11949 of 2010 -2- born on 26.9.2007. Sufficient amount was spent by parents of complainant in her marriage. The engagement ceremony was solemnized at Kurukshetra on 9th July 2006. Rs.70,000/- were spent for making arrangement of the engagement ceremony. Rs.20,000/- were paid in advance for booking of banquet hall of the choice of in-laws of the complainant. A sum of Rs.80,000/- was deposited by father of complainant in the joint account of husband and father-in- law of complainant. There was demand of Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry, hence a cheque of Rs.3,02,000/- was given by father of complainant to her husband. Another Rs.4,00,000/- were spent at the time of her marriage. Rs.25,000/- were given to the relatives. However, just after few days of marriage husband of the complainant started harassing and humiliating the complainant for not bringing sufficient dowry. On the very third day of the marriage all the jewellery gifted to her at the time of wedding by her parents, was forcibly taken away by petitioner-accused Shamim Siddiqui, which has not been returned. Thereafter she accompanied her husband to Siliguri i.e. the place of his posting. Before leaving she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and the petitioners. Thereafter, after reaching Siliguri her husband committed various acts of physical torture upon her. Father of complainant also sent various articles worth Rs.25,000/- to Siliguri as well through railway transport. When she became pregnant, her husband tried to get the child aborted but he do not succeed in his design and she gave birth to a child. The cruelty was to the extent that after the birth of child, husband disowned the newly born child and further refused to pay anything for his care. In the month of February 2008 in-laws of the complainant reached Chandigarh when sufficient amount was spent by parents of complainant to celebrate the birth of child. In June 2008 she had gone to the house of her in-laws and her parents were forced to give items worth Rs.75,000/- to celebrate the birth of child. However, after staying for some time at Lucknow, she was again thrown out of the matrimonial home on 19th June 2008 and she was left alone alongwith her child at Delhi Railway Station. In September Criminal Misc. No.M-11949 of 2010 -3- 2008 she again joined her husband to Siliguri and however he left the complainant and her child at Chandigarh forcibly. Parents of the complainant tried to settle the matter. However, mother-in-law of the complainant refused to return the jewellery etc. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are parents-in-law and that as per the allegations of the complainant, she resided with petitioners for few days only and thereafter she left with her husband to the station of his posting. Further contended that petitioners are ready to pay Rs.1,82,000/-, which was deposited in the joint account of petitioner No.1 and husband of complainant, however, no jewellery of the complainant is with respondent No.2. Bail application is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that jewellery worth about 40 tolas was taken away by mother-in-law and the same has not been returned. Further contended that even husband of complainant i.e. son of present petitioners is absconding and has not been arrested yet. There are specific allegations of harassment and cruelty including physical torture on the complainant by her husband and in- laws i.e. present petitioners. Dowry articles are yet to be recovered. In view of these facts, it is not such a case, in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui and Shamim Siddiqui. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition for anticipatory bail to the petitioners- accused Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui and Shamim Siddiqui is dismissed. September 07, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE