Crl. Misc. No.M-22613 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-22613 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 16, 2011 Harjeet Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.A.S. Sullar, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife Harpreet Kaur alleging that she has been tortured by the petitioner for not having fulfilled the demand of dowry by the parents and his family members. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant was a run away marriage against the wishes Crl. Misc. No.M-22613 of 2011 [2] of the family members of the petitioner. After the marriage, the parents of the complainant wanted that the petitioner should stay with them which is not permitted by the parents of the petitioner. On account of said circumstance, in order to pressure the petitioner, the present case has been registered against him. It has been contended that the behaviour of the complainant would not permit the parties to resume cohabitation. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the complainant as well as the State counsel and gone through the record. No doubt, the petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court but is not a fact that the petitioner has filed a petition for annulment of the marriage claiming that at the time of marriage he was not even 18 years of age. Besides this, he is adamant not to resume cohabitation. The matter was sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre but it appears that the complainant had not appeared before the Mediation Centre. The complainant is present in the Court. She has stated that she is ready to resume cohabitation with the petitioner and is ready to join the company of the petitioner but on askign of the Court, the petitioner has refused to resume cohabitation for the reasons best known to him. Taking into consideration the totality of all the circumstances, it does not appear to be a case where extraordinary exceptional circumstances can be said to exist to grant the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. There is a patent cruelty towards the complainant by the petitioner who has earlier entered into the matrimonial bond against the wishes of the family but subsequently has withdrawn his all sincerity and Crl. Misc. No.M-22613 of 2011 [3] left the complainant by maltreating her. There are allegations of demand of dowry by the petitioner and his family members. No ground is made out to grant the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. September 16, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE