IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-14983 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 28, 2011 Beant Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the respondents – State. Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the complainant. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 71, dated 20.04.2010, under Sections 406 & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Kapurthala. This Court vide order dated 20.05.2010, has stayed the arrest of the petitioners. CRM M-14983 of 2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the daughter of the complainant, respectively, and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have nothing to do with the demand of car at this age and moreover, they are having daughter aged about 32 years, who is mentally retarded and there is no other member in the family to look after her as their son is in USA. Learned counsel has further stated that in this case, an inquiry has already been conducted by the DSP, Ropar and complaint filed by the complainant was found to be false and second complaint has been filed with changed allegations. Learned counsel has further stated that moreover the petitioners are ready to rehabilitate the daughter of the complainant. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on the instructions from ASI Lakhwinder Singh, states that petitioners have joined the investigation. Mr. D.S. Sandhu, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant, states that till date, neither matter was settled nor Istridhan has been returned which is in possession of the petitioners, hence, anticipatory bail should not be granted to the petitioner. Claim of the learned counsel for the complainant has been seriously refuted by learned counsel for the petitioners. 2 CRM M-14983 of 2010 Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 126, has held that irrational and indiscriminate arrest should not be encouraged. What are the dowry articles/Istridhan in possession of the petitioners is a matter of evidence. There is a claim and counter claim about the dowry articles. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions provided under Section 438(2) of the Code. However, petitioners shall keep on participating in the investigation as and when they are required to do so by the Investigating Officer. February 28, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3