Crl.Misc.No.M-21126 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-21126 of 2009. Date of Order: January 14, 2010. Vandana .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Ms.Poonam Tara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arshvinder Singh DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Vibhav Jain, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Respondent nos.2 & 3, are husband and mother-in- law of petitioner. They were granted the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station, Mehta, District Amritsar, vide order dated 12.11.2008. At the time of hearing of the application for pre-arrest bail, the petitioner had come present in the Court and informed that she was residing with Sanjiv Kumar, her husband, on the basis of the subsequent development after registration of case. In the interest . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-21126 of 2009 of matrimonial harmony, it was deemed appropriate not to send the husband behind bars by dismissing his application for pre-arrest bail. While allowing the application, a condition was imposed upon respondent No.2, that he would not commit similar offence of which he was accused of, during pendency of the trial. It was specifically observed that in case of such eventuality, it will be open to the complainant to seek the cancellation of bail. Today, the petitioner complainant Vandana is present in the Court. She has informed that after resuming cohabitation during pendency of the trial, she had not been treated properly as a result of which she, at present is not willing to settle with Sanjiv Kumar. Sanjiv Kumar is present along with his mother Tripta Devi. It has also been stated by father of petitioner that a separate residence had been arranged for Vandana and Sanjiv Kumar but Sanjiv Kumar is not staying in the said house. After hearing the petitioner in person as well as respondent No.2, it transpires that there still exists matrimonial disharmony between the parties and that the said disharmony is the normal result of matrimony. There is no material against respondent No.2 before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that respondent No.2, has demanded dowry or maltreated the petitioner on account of demand of dowry after grant of pre-arrest bail. There is also no such material available to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner has again been treated with cruelty. It is a case where the petitioner and respondent No.2, need counselling by the elders but no case is made out for cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to the . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-21126 of 2009 respondent Nos.2 & 3. The petition is dismissed. The proceedings in the Criminal case may proceed in accordance with law at the instance of complainant if she is not satisfied with the present state of affairs. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 14, 2010. rka . . . 3