CRM-M 15416 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on December 10,2009. Gurbakshish Singh Atwal -- Petitioner vs. State of U.T, Chandigarh --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms.Amardeep Kaur and Mr.Abhishek Bhaskar,Advocates,for the petitioner(s) Mr.Hemant Bassi,Advocate,for the U.T.Chandigarh. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This order shall dispose of two bail petitions bearing CRM-M 15416 of 2009 (Gurbakshish Singh Vs. State of U.T, Chandigarh) and CRM-M16053 of 2009 (Surinder Singh Atwal Vs. State of UT,Chandigarh) filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), for pre arrest bail in case FIR No.202 dated 08.5.2009 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station, Sector 39,Chandigarh. The first bail petition bearing CRM-M 15416 of 2009 is by the husband of the complainant and the second bail application bearing CRM-M 16053 of 2009 is by the father-in-law of the complainant. CRM-M 15416 of 2009 (O&M) 2 According to the allegations made in the FIR, marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Gurbakshish Singh Atwal on 13.4.2008 as per Sikh Rites. After the marriage, the complainant stayed in the house of her in-laws for 2/3 days and her mother-in-law and father-in-law started maltreating and harassing her on account of bringing less dowry and not fulfilling their demand of Rs. 2,50,000/- cash and a Honda City Car. On 29.4.2008, a huge quantity of arms and ammunitions were recovered from the possession of her father-in- law for which one FIR No.117 dated 20.4.2008 was registered against him at Police Station, Sector 11,Chandigarh. It is further alleged that she was called 'manhus' in the family. In the month of June,2008, demand of the petitioner was fulfilled by the parents of the complainant by paying Rs.2,50,000/- in cash and Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid in July,2008. It is also alleged that in the month of June, 2008, her mother-in-law had taken away all her valuable jewellery, clothes etc. on account of keeping them in safe custody and when she demanded the same in the month of August, 2008, for the purpose of attending the marriage at her parental house, she was flatly refused to hand over the same. It was on 3.11.2008, that she was given beatings by her husband and her mother-in-law shunted her out in a pitiable condition at about 10 p.m. Apprehending their arrest in view of the aforesaid allegations in the FIR, the petitioners had approached the Court below for anticipatory bail. The bail application of Gurbakshish Singh was dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge,Chandigarh, vide his order dated 26.5.2009 while bail application of Surinder Singh CRM-M 15416 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Atwal was declined by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge,Chandigarh,vide his order dated 05.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for bail on parity with mother-in-law of the complainant who has already been granted bail. It is also submitted that after the interim bail was granted by this Court, the petitioners have joined the investigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the allegations contained in the FIR attract the provisions of Section 498-A and 406 IPC. Recovery of the dowry articles is also to be effected from the petitioners. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is worthwhile to mention here that in order to bring compromise between the parties, this Court had even sent this case to the Mediation Centre of this Court but all efforts for reconciliation proved futile. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the parties, I find that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail because all the allegations in the FIR are categoric and recoveries are yet to be effected. Hence, without commenting anything on the merit, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. December 10,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge