IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-10137 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.7.2010 Mohan Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the complainant. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of Mohan Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 35 dated 12.3.2010 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar. Notice of motion was issued in the case on 6.4.2010 and the petitioner was directed to join investigation with certain conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Mr.G. S.Sandhawalia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is grand-father of husband of the complainant and is 75 years of age. Grand son of the petitioner is a Non Resident Indian and is residing abroad along with his parents for the last more than 20 years and got married to respondent No.2 at Jalandhar in May 2008. Some differences arose to the couple due to temperament and a complaint was filed and the petitioner has been involved in that case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the only allegation against the present petitioner is that Crl.Misc. No.M-10137 of 2010 [2] he was entrusted with a gold ring being the grand-father of the boy, the boy who had settled in abroad and articles were left with the petitioner. Mr. Sandhawalia, learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs of the couple as he is an old man of 75 years and all family members have left India and he is the only person residing in India and wants to spend the remaining years of his life in peace. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that father-in- law, mother-in-law and husband of the complainant have left India and settled in abroad and all dowry articles were left with the present petitioner and, in absence of other family members, the present petitioner who is residing in India was handed over all dowry articles at the time of marriage and recovery of the articles is to be effected from him only. Learned counsel for the State submits that although the petitioner has joined the investigation but the recovery has not been effected except the gold ring. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having no property except a residential house and except gold ring, nothing was given to him and ring was given as a gift being grand father. The gold ring has already been handed over to the Investigating Officer during investigation. The husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant are settled in abroad and they have no property in India. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file. Complainant as well as the petitioner were present in Court Crl.Misc. No.M-10137 of 2010 [3] and efforts were made to settle the dispute with regard to final settlement of the complainant-young girl. During that period the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7 lacs to the complainant if the complainant wants to reside in his house and more than that, he cannot do and other family members are not coming to India in spite of his asking. This offer was made to the complainant, who was present in the Court along with his father, but the same was not accepted. The petitioner has joined the investigation and recovery of gold ring has also been effected from him and the conduct of the petitioner has remained bona fide with regard to looking after the interest of the complainant for settlement. Moreover, petitioner is more than 75 years of age. Other accused namely, Baldev Singh (uncle-in-law) Rashpal Kaur (Aunt-in-law) against whom the allegations are also similar and even more than the present petitioner, have been granted bail. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the interim directions issued by this Court on 6.4.2010 are made absolute. However, the petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. It is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Dated: 21.7.2010 raghav