Cr Misc 50029-M of 2006 1 Mr Suveer Sheokand, Advocate. Mr GS Bhandari, DAG Punjab. Ms Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 438 CrPC in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 406/498-A IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the husband and has joined the investigation. It is submitted that his custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. In fact, the complainant had lodged the FIR as a counter blast to the petition filed by him under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act – for short) seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr Divn) Ludhiana as the counsel for the petitioner had noted the wrong date on his brief as 12.9.2006 instead of 2.9.2006. The petition was dismissed in default on 2.9.2006. In any case, an application for restoration of the petition was filed on 12.9.2006 itself in which notice has been issued to the complainant and the case is now fixed for 7.5.2007. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. It is submitted that recovery of dowry articles has been effected. Learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the application for the grant of pre-arrest bail. It is submitted that the Police has not carried out effective investigation inasmuch as the gold ornaments have not been recovered. It is submitted that a complete list of the gold articles was supplied to the Police. However, the recovery has not been effected. Cr Misc 50029-M of 2006 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that whatever was in possession of the petitioner has been returned and the gold items are generally with the lady and are not kept by the husband. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on 3.3.2002 at Ludhiana. During the marriage, differences arose and the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, the complainant got registered case FIR 140 dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure P1) for the offences under Sections 406/498-A IPC. In the complaint, a list of the dowry articles was annexed as Annexure – A which, it is alleged, were entrusted to the accused as mentioned in the FIR. The accused include the petitioner as also the father and mother and the brother and his wife of his father. The FIR has been registered against many of the relatives. The allegations as made in the FIR are to be considered and gone into during the course of trial. It is also to be established whether the articles of dowry as mentioned in the list – Annexure A were indeed entrusted in the manner that has been alleged. The Police has made some recoveries and it is stated that the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. Keeping in view the aforesaid position and also the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute which may on some later occasion be amicably settled, it would not be proper to confine the petitioner to jail. In the circumstances, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer. The interim order dated 24.8.2006 is made absolute subject to the provisions of Section 438 CrPC. Cr Misc 50029-M of 2006 3 20.3.2007. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE