IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-868 of 2011 Date of decision: February 15, 2011. Mohit Puri ...Petitioner v. State of Punjab ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri U.S. Dhaliwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): The petitioner is the younger brother of Ajay Puri, who was married with the complainant – Puja Puri. Counsel states that the matrimonial dispute is between husband and wife, and the petitioner, being younger brother of the husband, has nothing to gain from the demand of dowry and Istridhan. Counsel further states that the husband of the complainant and parents-in-law have already been granted pre-arrest bail vide order Annexure P-5. Counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the recovery of dowry articles are to be made from the petitioner. This Court could not comprehend the argument advanced by Counsel for the State. If husband and parents-in-law have been granted pre- arrest bail, as to how the same relief can be denied to the younger brother of the husband. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted. The petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer. On submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioner shall furnish regular bail Crl. Misc. No.M-868 of 2011 -: 2 :- bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, the investigating agency shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the factum of compromise, noticed in the order granting pre-arrest bail to the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant is to be repudiated. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] February 15, 2011. Judge kadyan