Crl. Misc. No.M-18450 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-18450 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 8, 2010 Sunil Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.B.S. Sewak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Abhishekh Chautala, AAG, Punjab. Mr.P.S. Sullar, Advocate for complainant- respondent No.2. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife Kavita alleging that she had been maltreated on account of demand of dowry by the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner is alleged to have harassed the complainant on the allegation that her father has not met the demand of Royal Enfield Crl. Misc. No.M-18450 of 2010 [2] motorcycle. The complainant was mercilessly beaten up number of times. There is specific allegation that on March 27, 2010, the petitioner who is running a “Drinking Palace” came from his shop in a drunkened condition and had given merciless beating to the complainant. An attempt was made to kill her by taking her in the kitchen by lightening gas stove. She was tortured by putting brining biri-buds on her hands. The father of the complainant paid money to the petitioner on different occasions. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and the complainant in person. Initially an attempt was also made to get the matter compromised. It appears that the complainant is a Law graduate whereas the petitioner is not highly qualified. He is running a Tarvern. The allegations of torture in a brutal manner by putting bidi buds on the hands will not entitle the petitioner for the concession of pre-arrest bail. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed and that the recoveries have already been effected. So far as the injuries on the hand of the complainant are concerned, it was argued that the said injuries were received by the complainant while removing tight chura after marriage. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail where the bride had not even removed the chura, had been mercilessly beaten and tortured. The object of Section 498A and 406 IPC would be defeated in case, in such circumstances, concession of pre-arrest bail is granted. No ground is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail. Crl. Misc. No.M-18450 of 2010 [3] Dismissed. September 8, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE