1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.2638/2010 Harish Chandra Mathur & Anr. Vs. State Date of order : 19/8/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Dharamveer Tholia for the petitioners. Shri Laxman Meena, P.P. for the State. Shri Sandeep Pathak for the complainant. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the relevant documents placed before me. This application for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by father-in- law and mother-in-law of the complainant. The husband of the complainant was arrested and after sometime he was released on bail u/s.439 Cr.P.C. This Court has send the matter to the Mediation Centre, but despite best of the efforts made, the parties could not be persuaded to concile and now it is informed that there is no possibility of re-union. The matter was therefore heard on merits. Shri Dharamveer Tholia, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the marriage between the complainant Smt. Malini Mathur and petitioners' son Rahul Mathur failed largely because of the stern attitude of the complainant-Smt. Malini Mathur and that there was no evidence as to she was subjected to cruelty or otherwise any demand of dowry has been made. The amount of Rs.3,08,990/- of which demand draft was given, was not taken as a 2 dowry, but in fact the parents of the complainant wanted petitioners' son to go for further studies and it was thus directly paid to the institute as his fees. It is submitted that the dowry items of which list was originally submitted by the complainant was handed over to the Investigating Officer and subsequent list is of such articles which did not find place in the first list. It is also submitted that petitioner no.1 is 67 years of age and petitioner no.2 is about 66 years of age and that they are both heart patients and diabetic and that when their son was arrested, he was subjected to physical torture and which fact when reported to the higher authorities, disciplinary action was taken against the erring police officials. There is no purpose of sending the petitioners behind the bars, especially when the allegation of torture or demand of dowry by them is not substantiated on evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry is very much there and that many of the articles given in dowry have still not been recovered. Learned counsel referred to the articles, cash etc. still not received by the complainant. On going through the aforesaid list, we find that many of the articles are very petty items and some of the articles are sarees and clothes etc. which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner were not there in the first list. In any case, the Court is 3 satisfied that substantial items of which list was given by the complainant have already been handed over to the Investigating Officer. In the facts of the case, I am inclined to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners looking to their age and the nature of evidence, which otherwise came on record. In the result, this bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Harish Chandra Mathur S/o Shri N.Anand and (2) Smt. Veena W/o Shri Harish Chandra Mathur in FIR No.17/2010, Mahila Police Station (East), Jaipur City, East for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 383 of IPC, they shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions: - 1) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and 3) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/