Cr.Misc. M 14523 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 14523 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.8.2010 Amandeep Singh Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. GC Rattan, Advocate. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate, for complainant. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of his wife Palminder Kaur alleging that she is an N.R.I. lady married to the petitioner on 30.4.2006. A sum of Rs.10 lacs was given to the petitioner and his family members. Besides this, another sum of Rs.10 lacs was given to the petitioner. The complainant had returned to USA on 16.5.2006 and sent requisite documents for visa of the petitioner. She came to India twice in 2007 and paid Rs.5 lacs and Rs.2 lacs on different occasions. A daughter was born to her out of the wedlock on 20.12.2008. She was maltreated and a sum of Rs.2 lacs was demanded. She paid the said amount to the petitioner. Thereafter a male child was born out of the wedlock on 16.11.2009. On account of health problems, suffered by the complainant, a sum of Rs.5 lacs was spent on her by her mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the complainant has concealed the fact that she was earlier married and had obtained a divorce. It was contended that there are no allegations Cr.Misc. M 14523 of 2010 2 of misappropriation of the dowry articles, as such offence u/s 406 IPC was not mentioned in the FIR against the petitioner. It is not a case of custodial interrogation, as such, the petitioner should be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. On asking of the court, learned State counsel informs that offence u/s 406 IPC has been added after obtaining opinion from the District Attorney. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State counsel as well as the complainant, who herself appeared in the court and apprised the court that the fact that she was a divorcee at the time of the marriage had been disclosed to the petitioner. The petitioner had a greed to go to USA but when the visa was not approved by the Embassy , the petitioner started maltreating the complainant. When asked, if she was ready to join the matrimonial home, the complainant submitted that she was ready to continue the matrimonial life with the petitioner but the petitioner is adamant to harass her. It was brought to the notice of the court that he has filed a complaint against the complainant in the court of S.D.J.M., Dasuya alleging that the complainant along with her mother had committed a theft in the house of the petitioner. A copy of the complaint has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-5. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case and I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not only maltreated the complainant in frustration and greed but has also gone to the extent of adopting cheating tactics of lodging a private complaint against her and her mother. A perusal of the complaint, filed by him (Annexure P-5), indicates that he has levelled the allegations of cheating against the complainant on the ground that she has concealed the factum of her previous marriage and had also committed theft in his house. The offence u/s 406 IPC has Cr.Misc. M 14523 of 2010 3 also been added. There are no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in view of his cruel conduct of having maltreated his wife. It is a case of custodial interrogation where the recoveries are yet to be effected. Dismissed. August 25 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE