IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 1412 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 20, 2009 Vikram Suri ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.259 dated 23.11.2008 under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana. As per the prosecution case, petitioner got married to Bharti Suri on 24.4.2004. At the time of marriage, a huge amount was spent by the parents of the complainant. However, the petitioner and his family members were not satisfied with the articles given at the time of marriage and started harassing her. On 15.11.2006, a compromise was effected between the parties on an application filed before the Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana. However, the attitude of the petitioner and his family members did not change towards the complainant. On 15.1.2007, complainant and her husband started residing separately. However, the harassment of the complainant at the hands of the petitioner continued. A Honda City Car as well as various other articles were given at the time of Crl. Misc. M No. 1412 of 2009 -2- marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that most of the articles have been recovered during investigation when the petitioner was granted interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the lots of articles were yet to be recovered. During investigation of the case, only the petitioner was found guilty, whereas, his other family members were found innocent. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner got married to the complainant in the year 2004. As per the case of the complainant, petitioner had been harassing her on account of insufficient dowry. As per the prosecution, lots of articles given at the time of marriage, are yet to be recovered. Custodial interrogation of petitioner might be necessary. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge February 20, 2009 arya