IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 2923 of 2010 Date of decision: 8.7.2010 Gurnam Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Present: Mr TP Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr VPS Sidhu, AAG Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. This petition has been filed for the grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC at PS NRI, District Hoshiarpur. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of the complainant – Surinder Kaur wife of Roshan Singh. It has been alleged by the complainant that her daughter – Navjinder Kaur was married to Gurpreet Singh son of Rajinder Singh about two years earlier to the registration of the FIR. At the time of the marriage, they had given dowry to their daughter according to their capacity, besides Rs 3,00,000/- was given to them for an Alto car. After sometime, the in-laws of the daughter of the complainant started harassing her. They demanded a big car. Efforts were made to explain to them that the complainant could not give a big car but they harassed the daughter of the complainant. Then the complainant gave Rs 2,00,000/- to the mother-in-law and the husband at their house. However, after sometime, they again harassed her on different pretexts. They demanded more money. The respectable persons and relatives asked the Cr Misc M-2923 of 2010 2 family of the husband to send the daughter of the complainant abroad and the husband’s family agreed to the proposal and got a tourist visa for her; however, before leaving, they again started harassing her saying that they have incurred Rs 5,00,000/- and that she should pay this amount to them and only thereafter they will send her abroad. With great difficulty, the complainant arranged some money from her relatives and withdrew some money from the bank account and gave Rs 5,00,000/- to the in-laws. The complainant also paid the charges for the ticket of her daughter and she went abroad. There, her husband and brother-in-law started harassing her mentally. Her husband developed illicit relations with another lady in the foreign country. The daughter of the complainant was given threat of her life. Later, they informed the daughter of the complainant that they were to prepare papers for her permanent residence because she had earlier come on tourist visa which was going to expire. The husband informed that after coming back to India, he will bring her back on permanent residence papers. The husband then left the daughter of the complainant with the complainant and himself went back to Italy. From there, he on telephone informed the complainant that he would not keep her daughter with him. Then the complainant again went to the parents of the husband along with respectable persons. However, they abused the complainant and told them to keep their daughter. Therefore, it was requested that action be taken against the husband and in-laws of the daughter of the complainant. At the time of motion hearing on 2.2.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of Navjinder Kaur. It was submitted that no list of dowry articles had been given and on 5.1.2010 the list of dowry articles was filed during the pendency of the petition under Section 438 CrPC for the grant of anticipatory bail before the Cr Misc M-2923 of 2010 3 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. It was submitted that the petitioner was granted interim bail till 25.2.2010 and recovery as per list (P5) was made on 23.1.2010. As such, it was submitted that it could not be said that the petitioner had not been cooperating with the investigation. Notice of motion was issued for 22.3.2010 and meanwhile, in the event of arrest, it was ordered that she be admitted to interim bail. The case was taken up on 22.3.2010. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions, submitted that though the petitioner had joined the investigation, but recoveries were still to be effected. The petitioner was accordingly directed to join the investigation and appear before the IO on 23.3.2010 and continue to do so thereafter as and when called. The case was then adjourned to 28.4.2010. On the said date, learned counsel for the State submitted that some articles were still to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was again asked to join the investigation and the case was adjourned for today. Today, learned counsel for the State submits that though in terms of the order dated 28.4.2010, the petitioner was directed to again join the investigation, she has not joined the same. Besides, she has not got the complete dowry articles recovered as per the list dated 5.1.2010. Therefore, it may be noticed that though sufficient opportunities have been given to the petitioner to join the investigation and cooperate with it, however, she has failed to do so and has not cooperated in the investigation. The recovery of the dowry articles are to be effected from her. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, no ground is made out for pre-arrest bail. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 8.7.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge Cr Misc M-2923 of 2010 4