CRM-M 1922 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on August 21,2009. Ravinder Singh Dhanju -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana through Smt.Baljinder Kaur --Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.G.L.Sadana,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana. Mr.T.C.Dhanwal,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No. 604 dated 29.11.2008 under Sections 406/498-A/506/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar. Briefly stated the allegations contained in the FIR are that Baljinder Kaur complainant was married to the petitioner on 25.12.2004. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, dowry articles were given to the petitioner and her relatives. She was maltreated and turned out of the house in May, 2008. A panchayat was convened and on the assurance of the accused persons, she was left at Chandigarh on 11.6.2008 but was not CRM-M 1922 of 2009 (O&M) 2 treated well and on 17.6.2008 she along-with her husband came to Hisar. She talked to her parents for money for purchase of car and her father gave Rs.50,000/-. After returning back to Chandigarh, she was again beaten on 20.6.2008. She moved an application to the police, but the matter was settled. It is also alleged that her father-in-law and mother-in-law threatened that they would leave her and would settle her son abroad. When she demanded her passport from her husband, he refused to give it. On 22.10.2008, her father-in-law and mother-in-law came to her house and threatened her and abused her. Thereafter, her father brought her back to Hisar on 23.10.2008. However, she was again brought by them. It is alleged that ultimately on 26.11.2008, the petitioner was brought back by her uncle Baldev Singh from Chandigarh to Hisar. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner had subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment for the purpose of dowry. In this process between the period 2006 to 2008, father and brother of the complainant had paid Rs. 20,000/-,Rs.35,000/-, Rs.45,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.49,000/- and Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs.8,00,000/-for purchasing Honda City Car, gold set for his mother and gold kara for his father and when the complainant had denied the said demand, she was beaten. After the aforesaid FIR has been registered, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Hisar on 9.1.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted interim bail by this Court and has also joined the investigation. It is further submitted that no articles are to be recovered CRM-M 1922 of 2009 (O&M) 3 and if any article is to be recovered, then the petitioner shall give bank guarantee for the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently argued that the petitioner had subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment in order to satisfy his lust and greed for dowry. It is also submitted that still, gold, cash, cheques as well as other articles like TV, AC, Sofa set etc. are still to be recovered. From the perusal of record, I find that reconciliatory efforts were made to effect the compromise between the complainant/wife and petitioner-husband. The complainant/wife was ready for the compromise to join the matrimonial home, but the husband categorically refused. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there are allegations of cruelty for the purpose of dowry against the petitioner and that the recoveries are yet to be effected, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence the bail application is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made here-in- above may not be taken as an expression on merit of the case. Aug 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge