Crl.Misc.No.M-12037 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: May 26, 2010. (1) Crl.Misc.No.M-12037 of 2010 Jagdish Chand and another .. Petitioners * * * (2) Crl.Misc.No.M-14972 of 2010 Rohit Garg .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners in both the petitions. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, AAG., Punjab. Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the complainant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of the above noted two petitions for pre-arrest bail, one filed by Jagdish Chand and Prem . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-12037 of 2010 Lata, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively and another filed by Rohit Garg, husband of the complainant Monika. Complainant Monika has levelled the allegations against her husband Roihit Garg and other family members that she had been maltreated by her husband and family members on account of demand of dowry. It is alleged that all the dowry articles as per the demand of the petitioners were handed over at the time of marriage. The complainant was asked to bring a sum of Rs.5 lacs from her parents. A sum of Rs.20,000/- per month was demanded from her parents. On account of demand having not been fulfilled, she was given severe beatings by her husband Rohit Garg and other family members. There are allegations against Rohit Garg of having given beatings to the complainant on different occasions. So far as petitioners Jagdish Chand and Prem Lata, are concerned they have already handed over the dowry articles to the Investigating Agency. They have also paid a sum of Rs.1 lac pursuant to the interim orders dated 28.04.2010 without prejudice to their rights. So far as petitioner Rohit Garg is concerned, his petition was ordered to be heard along with petition of his parents. It is claimed that he has been living separately with the complainant as desired by her and that the allegations of the complainant of having maltreated are vague and uncertain and no recoveries are to be effected. Counsel for the complainant and State counsel have opposed the application for pre-arrest bail contending that no . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-12037 of 2010 extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners as the petitioners connived together to play fraud with the complainant. The signatures of the complainant were obtained on different blank papers. She was made proprietor of M/s Shri Balaji Flour Mills and subsequently in papers it was shown that on payment of Rs.7 lacs to her, she do not have any right in proprietorship. It has further been brought to the notice of the Court that during the period of her being proprietor of M/s Shri Bala Ji Flour Mills, she was made to sign number of documents. The said documents along with certain cheques purported to be signed by the complainant are being misused by different parties for the purpose of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the complainant. A reference has been made to few legal notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, received by the complainant in order to harass her and pressurise her. I have gone through the documents received by the complainant and the police file. So far as the allegation against Rohit Garg, and his conduct is concerned, he does not appear to be entitled to the grant of any concession under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petition of Rohit Garg is dismissed. So far as petitioners Jagdish Chand and Prem Lata are concerned they being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail having already joined the investigation as it does not appear to be a case of . . . 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-12037 of 2010 custodial interrogation against them. It is ordered that in case of arrest of Jagdish Chand and Prem Lata, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the condition that they will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner. Accordingly, petition qua Rohit Garg is dismissed whereas petition of Jagdish Chand and Prem Lata is allowed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 26, 2010. rka . . . 4