Crl. Misc. No.M-13587 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: October 19, 2011 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-13587 of 2011 Yashpal Sharma and another …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-18489 of 2011 Rahul Sharma …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. G.S Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Mr.L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. Crl. Misc. No.M-13587 of 2011 [2] -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. M-13587 and M-18489 one filed by Yashpal Sharma and another and another filed by Rahul Sharma, husband of the complainant. The complainant has levelled allegations that she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and misappropriation of her dowry articles including the gold ornaments. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations against the petitioners regarding demand of dowry are baseless. It was vehemently argued by counsel for the petitioners that the marriage of petitioner Rahul Sharma was solemnized on August 8, 2009 in a very simple manner without any exchange of dowry articles. After two months of marriage, the husband had gone back to his job in South Africa and thereafter called the complainant by depositing the requisite fee. The ticket was also purchased by the husband of the complainant. The complainant shabbily treated her husband and she always raised unreasonable demands. She expressed her desire not to stay in South Africa. Her Visa was valid from February 8, 2010 to December 31, 2010. She forced her husband to come to India. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the complainant was looked after well by her husband and huge cash was deposited in her account. It was alleged that the father of the complainant was out of job and she wanted her father to be financially helped. It was also argued that no dowry article was received by the petitioners. Crl. Misc. No.M-13587 of 2011 [3] I have heard counsel for the petitioners as well as State Counsel besides hearing the counsel for the complainant. So far as petitioners, father-in-law and mother-in-law are concerned, they after joining investigation having been paid a sum of ` 1 lac under the directions of the Court. It does not appear to be a case of the custodial interrogation qua Yash Pal Sharma and Urmila. Their petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M- 13587 of 2011 for grant of pre-arrest bail is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that they will join investigation as and when required by the investigating officer and that they will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner. So far as petitioner Rahul Sharma is concerned, it will not be appropriate to express any opinion whether he had maltreated the complainant or the complainant had misbehaved with him as claimed by counsel for the petitioner. It appears improbable that without there being any cruelty on the part of the petitioner, the complainant has got any reason to falsely implicate him. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the pre-arrest bail to petitioner- Rahul Sharma. The petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-18489 of 2011 is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate or before the investigating officer. It is expected that in case the petitioner Crl. Misc. No.M-13587 of 2011 [4] surrenders in the abovesaid manner, his application for regular bail will be decided expeditiously. October 19, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE