IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24447 of 2010 Date of decision : 25.8.2010 Kishan Singh and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioners. *** S.S. SARON, J. During the course of hearing, on the specific question being asked whether the petitioners are ready to return the dowry articles mentioned in Para 2 of the complaint which is reproduced in the petition i.e. 8 tolas gold ornaments, 500 gms silver ornaments, 151 utensils, colour T.V, fridge, one sofa set, one double bed, one godrej Almirah, one cooler, one sewing machine, one wrist watch, Rs.4100/- cash and 30 pairs of clothes; besides, Rs.50,000/- spent on the barat; learned counsel submits that petitioners have no concern with the dowry articles and they are the parents-in-law of the complainant Pushpa Devi. Learned counsel has made a reference to police investigation which is recorded in the police report (Halaat Mukadma) dated 29.6.2010. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that in the Police report (Halaat Mukadma) dated Crl. Misc. No. M-24447 of 2010 [2] 29.6.2010 it is recorded that during investigation Dalip Kumar, husband of the complainant and son of the petitioners was arrested on 18.5.2010 and on the same day, he got recovered dowry articles which included one single bed, one cooler, one sewing machine, one iron almirah, one small T.V. and utensils. These were taken in possession by the Police. Dalip Kumar was produced before the Court on 19.5.2010 and two days’ remand was taken for recovery of jewellery and fridge. Dalip Kumar got recovered one old fridge, one colour T.V., but he did not get the gold and silver ornaments recovered. It is mentioned that recovery of the articles from the in- laws of the complainant namely Kishan Singh and Smt. Maya Devi (petitioners) remains to be effected. Learned counsel for the petitioners is quite evasive regarding the recovery of 8 tolas gold ornaments, 500 gms silver ornaments which are specifically mentioned in Para 2 of the complaint. There are allegations of entrustment of dowry articles and embezzlement of the same; besides of beating and harassment against the petitioners. Therefore, in order to get the recovery effected, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. Therefore, no ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 25, 2010 amit