IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-13639 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 16, 2010 Mehal Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab Mr.G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the complainant .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.38 dated 26.3.2010 under sections 406,498-A,506 IPC at police station Baghapurana, District Moga. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no specific allegation of harassment against the petitioner in the FIR. This apart, only gifts were given at the time of marriage and there was no dowry as such. He further submits that petitioner has moved an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, he is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Crl.Misc.No.M-13639 of 2010 - 2 - The prayer for bail has been resisted by learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant. Learned State counsel submits that though petitioner had joined investigation pursuant to ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted by this court, he failed to co-operate with the investigating agency. According to him, not even a single dowry article could be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that despite reference of matter to permanent Lok Adalat in this court, matter could not be settled amicably due to non- cooperative attitude of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the FIR shows that complainant has alleged that apart from gold ornaments, a number of electronic items were given as dowry at the time of marriage. Alongwith this, some cash was also given. The details of all the articles have been given in the FIR. Despite this, the complainant was harassed by the petitioner and asked to bring Rs.5,00,000/-, as he wanted to go to England. On being told that it was not possible to fulfil this demand, he subjected the complainant to harassment. The complainant was told that she would be killed in case she failed to bring Rs.5,00,000/-. In view of seriousness of allegations and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-13639 of 2010 - 3 - August 16, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3