IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. 23038 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No. M-10139 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 02nd May, 2011. Yashpal Kakkar & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate Versus State of Haryana Respondent through Mr. G.S.Sandhu, AAG, Haryana Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate, for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] In this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners who are husband and wife, respectively, seek grant of pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 58 dated 11.03.2011, registered under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC at Police Station, SGM Nagar, Faridabad. [2]. The above-stated FIR has been registered on a complaint made by the daughter-in-law of the petitioners, namely, Alka who was married to Dheeraj Kakkar – son of the petitioners on 24.11.2008. The complainant has specifically alleged that despite sufficient dowry being given by her father at the time of marriage, the petitioners along with some of their relatives have been pressurizing her and even gave beatings to bring `25 lacs for opening of a 'Show Room' for her husband, namely, Dheeraj Kakkar. The FIR reveals that the husband of the complainant has already gone abroad and is permanently settled there whereas the complainant continued to stay with her parents-in-law till she was thrown out after thrashing and causing mental and physical harassment for not bringing `25 lacs to settle her husband in some business in India. Besides the serious nature of allegations specifically levelled against the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant has rightly highlighted the plight of newly wed wives of “absentee husbands” prevailing in North India [especially in Punjab and Haryana] who use and park their wives at the mercy of their locals as if these legally wedded wives have no better status than 'domestic animals'. The present case is no exception as despite an opportunity given, the petitioners are neither willing to return the value of dowry articles statedly given to them at the time of marriage of their son with the complainant nor they are ready to listen for the return of their son for an amicable solution of this matrimonial dispute in which the worst victim is the innocent child born out of the wedlock. [3]. The clean heart with a clean mind is an essential pre- requisite for seeking concession of pre-arrest bail. [4]. The conduct of the petitioners and the extreme reluctance said to have been shown by their son to return India and control the out-break of this un-ending matrimonial fire, coupled with the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioners, dissuade this Court to extend the relief of pre-arrest bail. [5]. The variety of allegations attributed to the petitioners and their son can be adjudged only after subjecting the petitioners to custodial interrogation. [6]. No case to grant the pre-arrest bail is made out. [7]. Dismissed. May 02, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE