Crl. Misc. No. M-29597 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: November 30, 2011 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-29597 of 2011 Sudarshan Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-30572 of 2011 Paramveer Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners in both cases. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. M-29597 of 2011 [2] -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. M-29597 and M-30572 of 2011 for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case which was registered at the instance of Prabhjot Kaur, alleging that she was married to petitioner Paramveer Singh on October 12, 2003. Out of the wedlock, one female child was born. She was harassed and maltreated by her husband and Sudarshan Kaur, mother-in-law for having brought less dowry. She was turned out of the matrimonial house. A demand of Rs.3 lacs was raised in order to resume cohabitation. The complainant lost her father on account of the conduct of the petitioners. During the course of investigation it transpired that the husband had obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Pathankot on July 17, 2008. Despite the said fact, the petitioner Paramveer Singh maintained relations with the complainant. The complainant gave birth to second child as a result of the relations maintained between the complainant and the petitioner -Paramveer Singh after the decree of divorce. In view of the said circumstances, offence under Section 376 IPC alongwith offence under Section 420, 313, read with Section 511 and 120B IPC were added. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the story of the prosecution has been changed during the course of investigation to give it a serious colour to prejudice the rights of petitioner Paramveer Crl. Misc. No. M-29597 of 2011 [3] Singh. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner Paramveer Singh is still ready to maintain his children. It has been submitted that he has been sending money to the complainant and there is consistent record of the bank indicating that he has been maintaining the complainant and his children. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is an admitted fact that the matrimonial relations cease to exist with a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in the year 2008. In view of petitioner Paramveer Singh having abused his status being a divorced husband by sexually exploiting the complainant, no extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to petitioner Paramveer Singh despite the fact that he has joined investigation. So far as petitioner Sudarshan Kaur, mother-in-law of complainant is concerned, she being a lady can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-29597 of 2011 filed by Sudarshan Kaur is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of petitioner Sudarshan Kaur she will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. So far as the petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-30572 of 2011 filed by petitioner Paramveer is concerned, it is dismissed as no extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the pre-arrest bail to petitioner Paramveer Singh. This order will not prejudice the rights of Crl. Misc. No. M-29597 of 2011 [4] petitioner Paramveer Singh to seek the concession of regular bail by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate or the investigating officer. It will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again in case the parties enter into any amicable settlement at a subsequent stage. November 30, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE