IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21975 of 2009 Date of decision : September 03, 2009 Purshotam Das Aggarwal and others ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana for respondent no. 1 Mr. HS Sanga, Advocate for respondent no. 2 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Purshotam Das Aggarwal and five others have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 144 dated 1.8.2009, under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Kosli, District Rewari. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Marriage of complainant Meenu Aggarwal respondent no. 2 with Anup Aggarwal, petitioner no. 3 was solemnized on 31.1.2009 and it appears that the trouble started soon after the marriage and in the beginning of May, 2009, pregnancy of respondent no. 2 was allegedly got aborted. In between, the demands were made and the complainant was allegedly harassed. Criminal Misc. No. M-21975 of 2009 -2- Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Jai Bhagwan states that petitioner no. 6 has been found to be innocent. Accordingly, the instant petition qua petitioner no. 6 is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, if at any subsequent stage, petitioner no. 6 is sought to be arrested, atleast 7 days prior notice in writing shall be given to him. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are parents-in-law of the complainant whereas petitioner no. 3 is husband of the complainant. Petitioner no. 4 is sister of petitioner no. 3 whereas petitioner no. 5 is husband of petitioner no. 4. Petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are residents of House No. 2728 in Sitaram Bazar, Delhi. Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are residing on second floor and petitioner nos. 4 and 5 on third floor. Complainant-respondent no. 2 is resident of Kosli, District Rewari, Haryana. Petitioner no. 5 is employed in Holy Family Hospital and with his connivance and help, pregnancy of respondent no. 2 is said to have been got aborted in the said hospital. Learned State counsel states that offence under section 313 IPC has also since been added. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that incidents happened at Delhi and therefore, police at Kosli District Rewari has no territorial jurisdiction. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ratan and Ors. versus State of M.P. and Anr. 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 513 and also a judgment of this Court in the case of Jasjit Singh Bakshi and Ors versus State of Punjab & Anr. , 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 170. However, at this stage of anticipatory bail, question of territorial jurisdiction is not required to be gone into in deep. Suffice to observe that some of the incidents, particularly involving petitioner nos. 3 and 5 also took place at Criminal Misc. No. M-21975 of 2009 -3- Kosli where they made demands. There are serious allegations against petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5. Keeping in view the same but without commenting anything on merits, they do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. However, there are not so serious and specific allegations against petitioner nos. 2 and 4 who are ladies also and law has sympathetic provision in favour of ladies in the matter of bail. Accordingly, in my considered view, petitioner nos. 2 and 4 deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, anticipatory bail petition on behalf of petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5 is dismissed and the petition is allowed qua petitioner nos. 2 and 4. In the event of arrest, petitioner nos. 2 and 4 shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the conditions that they shall join the investigation as and when required by the police and shall comply with the conditions specified in section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Presently, petitioner nos. 2 and 4 are directed to join the investigation on 10.9.2009 at 10.00 AM and continue to do so. The instant order qua petitioner nos. 2 and 4 shall remain operative till one month after the filing of the charge sheet by the police or till the decision of regular bail petition of petitioner nos. 2 and 4, whichever is earlier. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 03, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'