CRM No. M 7388 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 7388 of 2010 Date of decision: 05.05.2010 Charan Singh and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Ms Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sanjiv Sura, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent State Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 53 dated 30.01.2010 under Section 323/498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law whereas, petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the dowry articles were still with the petitioners and that as per the CRM No. M 7388 of 2010 2 investigation the incident, as stated in the FIR, did occur and therefore, bail should not be granted to them as the dowry articles are yet to be recovered. Mr. Sanjiv Sura, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from ASI-Naresh Kumar, states that the petitioners have joined the investigation. Allegations in the FIR are that the present petitioners along with the father of the complainant came to Bahadurgarh on 18.12.2009 where the complainant and her husband were admittedly residing. The dowry articles, as per the FIR, itself, were handed over to the complainant and her husband at Bahadurgarh. A photocopy of the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the JMIC Panipat, has been placed on record whereby the husband of the complainant was granted bail. In the aforesaid order, it is duly recorded that no recovery was to be effected from the accused and hence, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind the bars. The other co-accused have already granted anticipatory bail. In view of the above, the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by this Court is made absolute. However, nothing said herein will have any bearing on the merits of the case. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 05.05.2010 mohan