Crl. Misc. No. M-38161 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-38161 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.2.2011 Liyakat and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat, vide FIR No.430 dated 26th August, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that pursuant to order dated January 12, 2011, the petitioners joined investigation and thus, they are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel (on the instructions from ASI Shish Ram, who is present in court) submits that though the petitioners appeared before the investigating officer pursuant to the aforesaid order but they refused to cooperate. No recovery of gold ornaments could be effected from them. He further referred to order dated December 24, 2010 and submits that this court was pleased to issue notice of motion Crl. Misc. No. M-38161 of 2010 and grant interim stay of arrest of the petitioners, as they had expressed willingness to settle the entire matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel for the complainant has taken a stand in similar terms. Both the counsel have prayed that since the petitioners are no longer interested in settling the matrimonial dispute, the present petition may be dismissed. Heard. A perusal of the order dated December 24, 2010 shows that counsel for the petitioner had made statement before this court that the petitioners are ready to settle the entire matrimonial dispute amicably. On request of counsel for the petitioners, complainant was also impleaded as a party in this case. However, the stand taken today before this court is that petitioners are not inclined to settle the matrimonial dispute. This apart, it is a clear cut stand of the State that petitioners have not cooperated with the investigating agency. Allegations against them are that they kept on demanding dowry articles in the shape of Hero Honda motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- in cash and complainant was treated with cruelty on demand of dowry who is the mother of a son. The dowry articles are yet to be recovered. Under the circumstances, no ground for granting the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners is made out. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 21.2.2011 'rajpal'