Cr.Misc. M 26863 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 26863 of 2009 Date of decision:- 13.1.2010 Rajwinder Singh petitioner vs State of Punjab and another Respondent Present: Mr. AP Singh, Advocate. Mr.Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Pb Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is husband of Nishi Rani, respondent No.2.He seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Nishi Rani alleging that she had been harassed by the petitioner and his family members on account of demand of dowry and that all her jewellery and other articles, entrusted to the petitioner and his family members stand misappropriated. There is another allegation against the petitioner that during inquiry, he had offered to pay a sum of Rs.2.75 lacs and a cheque was issued on behalf of the petitioner by his father towards the cost of the alleged dowry articles in view of the compromise having been arrived at . The cheque issued, on presentation, was dishonoured. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had not issued the cheque and that the cheque was issued by his father and the complainant has already initiated proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act regarding dishonouring of the cheque and the father of the petitioner is facing trial. Cr.Misc. M 26863 of 2009 2 Learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail on the ground that recoveries are yet to be effected and that the petitioner has cheated the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the dowry articles have already been recovered. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the short controversy, which remains to be sorted out between the petitioner and the complainant, is whether the complainant has been cheated by issuance of a cheque of Rs.2.75 lacs by the petitioner's father at the time of compromise, which stood dishonoured on presentation. Without entering into the controversy whether the entire dowry articles have already been recovered, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner on the following grounds:- i) The petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police. ii) The petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.2 by 6.2.2010 in shape of a bank draft in lieu of the alleged dowry articles, which are yet to be recovered. The said bank draft will be given to the investigating officer, who will hand over the same to respondent No.2. iii) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation at any stage. None of the above said conditions will prejudice the proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the father of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. It is made clear that in case any of the above conditions is not complied with, the Cr.Misc. M 26863 of 2009 3 complainant or the State will be at liberty to seek cancellation of pre-arrest bail. January 13 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE