Crl. Misc. -M No. 9008 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 9008 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.8.2011 Gilbert and others ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Haryana ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Gautam K. Jaina, Advocates for petitioners No.1 and 2. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant. Petition qua petitioner No.3 is dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 4.4.2011. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the sister in law of the complainant. They were granted interim bail. This is not in dispute that they have joined investigation. Learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that 22 tolas of gold ornaments and original certificates of the complainant which are in possession of petitioner No.1, are yet to be recovered for which his custodial interrogation is required. Learned counsel for petitioners No.1 and 2 submitted that no gold ornaments were given in the dowry. The other dowry articles have already been recovered. As far as certificates in original are concerned, the same are not in possession of petitioner No.1, however, he will get the duplicates issued from the concerned authorities at his cost in case the complainant cooperates and applies for the same. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts of the case, in my opinion, petitioners No.1 and 2 are not required for custodial interrogation for recovery of certificates of the complainant in original or gold articles as is sought to be claimed as on date Crl. Misc. -M No. 9008 of 2011 -2- it cannot be finally said what was given in dowry. Recovery is sought to be made on the basis of allegations made in the FIR. Accordingly, interim bail granted to petitioners No.1 and 2 on 4.4.2011 is made absolute. As far as certificates of the complainant, which are allegedly in possession of petitioner No.1, is concerned, the complainant may apply for issuance of duplicates, the cost of which shall be borne by petitioner No.1. In case intimation is given to petitioner No.1 regarding application having been filed, it will be the duty of petitioner No.1 to pursue those applications and get the duplicates issued. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 25.8.2011 Judge Meenu