Crl. Misc. No.M-13290 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: November 17, 2010. Crl. Misc. No.M-13290 of 2010 (O&M) Amarjit Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another. . Respondents *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.K.S.Kahlon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG., Punjab. Mr.J.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is the father-in-law of Parminder Kaur complainant-respondent. The allegation against the petitioner is that his son was married to the complainant Parminder Kaur. The complainant was maltreated on account of demand of dowry and the dowry articles of the complainant were misappropriated. An . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-13290 of 2010 (O&M) allegation has been levelled against the son of the petitioner and others that Hargopal Singh son of the petitioner was already married to an American lady on September 23, 1999 and that during the subsistence of the first marriage, he married the complainant and sexually exploited her as such, he had committed the offence under Section 376 IPC. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, State counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant and carefully considered the record. The main ground for contesting the application for pre-arrest bail is that the son of the petitioner was already married but the petitioner facilitated the commission of sexual offence qua the complainant by the son of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first marriage of Hargopal Singh stood dissolved by a decree of divorce Annexure P-6, passed by a Court of Georgia. It is also an admitted fact that son of the petitioner and the complainant, at present, are not residing in India. Prima facie, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out against the son of the petitioner. The petitioner has, pursuant to the interim order dated 13.05.2010, has already joined the investigation. It does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation qua the petitioner. In view of the above circumstances, the petition is allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-13290 of 2010 (O&M) the arresting officer. The petitioner will be required to furnish fresh bail bonds in case the prosecution agency opts to present challan against the petitioner. It is observed that nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the prosecution agency during trial. Any observation in this order is solely for the purpose of adjudication of this petition. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 17, 2010. rka . . . 3