IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 24, 2009 Crl. Misc. M No. 1656 of 2009 Murlidhar Shastri ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Crl. Misc. M No. 1326 of 2009 Smt.Vidhya Sharma and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Har Naresh Singh Gill,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. This order shall dispose of above mentioned Criminal Misc. Nos. M-1656 of and M-1326 of 2009 as they have arisen out of the same FIR. Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 296 dated 18.12.2008 registered at Police Station Division No. 7, Ludhiana under Section 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). The FIR in question has been registered on the basis of the Crl. Misc. M No. 1656 of 2009 -2- statement made by the complainant-Chandani. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, Chandani was married to Dheeraj on 2.2.2006. They were blessed with son on 3.12.2007. The husband as well as his family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. Hence, the complainant was being harassed on account of insufficient dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant was residing separately with her husband after marriage and were having a separate ration card. The parents of Dheeraj had disowned their son on 12.9.2008 and it was got published in `Daily Ajit' Newspaper (Annexure P6). Learned counsel for the state has opposed these petitions on the ground that the recovery of gold and silver ornaments as well as motor cycle and microwave oven were yet to be recovered. In the present case, complainant was married to Dheeraj on 2.2.2006. Dheeraj was arrested in this case and remained under police custody for six days. The relevant recoveries had been effected from him. A perusal of the news item published in `Daily Ajit' on 12.9.2008. reveals that the petitioner-Murlidhar and Vidhya had disowned their son-Dheeraj. The FIR in this case was registered in December, 2008. The case of the petitioners is that Dheeraj along with his wife were residing separately. Whether the petitioners had also harassed the complainant would more appropriately be gone into during trial. The husband of the complainant remained in custody for ten days in all and recovery of dowry articles were effected from him. The alleged motor cycle or the micro wave oven or the jewellery articles might have also been in possession of the husband of the Crl. Misc. M No. 1656 of 2009 -3- complainant. Hence, the petitioners, who are the parents and brother of the husband of the complainant, are thus, liable to be released on bail. Accordingly, interim bail granted to the petitioners-Vidhya Sharma and Chandan Shastri on January 16,2009 is made absolute. So far as petitioner-Murlidhar Shastri is concerned, he be released on bail, in the event of arrest, subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, However, he shall join the investigation as and when called and shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Sabina) Judge Febrauary 24, 2009 arya