IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-14075 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.8.2010 Ajit Singh and another ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.B.R.Rana,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Jony Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. **** ORDER The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioners Ajit Singh and Balbir Kaur for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.16 dated 17.4.2010 registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. While issuing notice of motion on 13.5.2010, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners were noted down: “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, respectively and have falsely been implicated in the case, whereas they were residing Crl.Misc.No.M-14075 of 2010 [2] separately in a different house. Learned counsel further contends that husband of the complainant, who is the main accused, has already been granted bail by the trial Court and moreover, no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners.” Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case, whereas no specific allegations are there against them. Moreover, nothing was paid at the time of marriage and it was a case of simple marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that immediately after three months of marriage, the complainant remained with her parents and difference between complainant and her husband were due to temperamental attitude of the complainant. Mr. R.S.Rawat, learned AAG, Punjab submits that in spite of giving ample opportunities to the petitioners, they did not co- operate with the investigation and there are specific allegations with regard to giving dowry articles at the time of marriage and demand of dowry and it is not a case of false implication. As per allegations in the FIR, although the petitioners made a demand of Rs.50,000/- from the parents of the complainant and an amount of Rs.25,000/-, jewellery and other costly clothes were also handed over to them, but in spite of several opportunities granted by the Court and efforts made by the Investigating Officer, recovery of those articles could not be effected. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Crl.Misc.No.M-14075 of 2010 [3] parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file. As per allegations made in the FIR, the complainant was being harassed by the petitioners from the very beginning of the marriage and they were not satisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. The complainant was harassed on many occasions on the pretext of bringing less dowry. A specific demand was raised by the present petitioners out of which an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to them. In spite of that, they were not satisfied. The husband of the complainant as well as present petitioners used to beat her for bringing less dowry. It is also an admitted case of the parties that husband of the complainant was arrested and recovery of some of the dowry articles was made. As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioners were also given dowry articles at the time of marriage and the same have not been returned in spite of giving several opportunities to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make out a special case for grant of anticipatory bail by simply stating that no dowry was given at the time of marriage and no demand was ever raised by them is not sufficient ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail. It has been held in may judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as various High Courts that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of extra-ordinary character and that should be exercised only in exceptional cases. Moreover, limitations have been imposed in Section 437 Cr.P.C. that petitioner must make out a special case for exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Crl.Misc.No.M-14075 of 2010 [4] In the present case, no case of special circumstance or of exceptional nature has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations against the present petitioners with regard to demand of dowry and harassment and the fact that the petitioners did not co-operate in the investigation, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 30, 2010. raghav