In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-22763 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 Dharampal Sharma @ Laddi ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by Dharampal Sharma @ Laddi under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 153 dated 9.7.2008, under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station Bhullath, District Kapurthala. On 28.11.20008, the following order was passed by this Court :- “The averments made by the petitioner- husband is that all the dowry articles have been returned Criminal Misc. No.M-22763 of 2008 -2- to his estranged wife (who is represented by Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel besides the State which is represented by the learned State counsel). In support of the averment sustenance is drawn from Annexure P-3 which purported to be a documented deed evidencing the return of dowry articles. Learned counsel for the wife does not dispute the factum of the averment but he informs that a large number of dowry articles and gold ornaments are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would instruct the petitioner to return the left out dowry articles to his estranged wife. Adjourned to 16.1.2009. In the meanwhile, it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner by the arresting officer, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:- “(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii)that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” Criminal Misc. No.M-22763 of 2008 -3- Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Mohinder Singh and learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation but the gold articles, which were given to the girl by her parents as well as her in- laws at the time of marriage, had not been returned so far. On the last date also the case was adjourned to enable the petitioner to return the Istridhan articles. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the dowry articles have been returned to the complainant vide Annexure P-3, whereas, the learned State counsel has submitted that the gold articles, which were given to the girl by her parents as well as her in-laws at the time of marriage, were not mentioned in the list Annexure P-3. Since the petitioner has not returned the Istridhan articles of the daughter of the complainant, no ground to release him on anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 24, 2009 anita