IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 17146 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 27, 2010. Smt.Mehram and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh, A.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.42 dated 26.02.2010 under Sections 498A/406/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Nagina, District Mewat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are old parents-in-law of complainant and that they used to live separate from the complainant and her husband i.e. son of the present petitioners. Further contends that son of petitioners is not returning from abroad despite the best efforts. CRM No.M-17146 of 2010 Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that main dowry articles are yet to be recovered and that even husband of complainant i.e. son of the present petitioners had gone abroad despite the undertaking given by the petitioners that their son would return from abroad to reconcile the matter with his wife however, he has not returned. Brief allegations are that, marriage of complainant and son of present petitioners was solemnized on 20.07.2003 as per Muslim rites. At the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given by the father of complainant, detail of which has been given in the complaint itself. However, present petitioners and other family members were not satisfied with the same and they started taunting the complainant. They raised demand of `2,00,000/- in cash. Complainant told all these facts to her father on her first visit to the parental home after marriage. On the ceremony of Gauna demand of `2,00,000/- was raised but father of complainant told that he is a poor person and could not meet the said demand. Complainant was sent to matrimonial home with son of the petitioners after giving `5100/- in cash and other valuable clothes. Two daughters were born out of the wedlock. Even on the birth of daughters as well acts of cruelty were committed upon the complainant and again demand of `2,00,000/- was raised. About 1-1/2 year ago, all the accused gave severe beatings to her and snatched her jewellery and she was sent out of the matrimonial home alongwith two daughters. Father of the complainant visited the house of petitioners and requested them to keep the complainant in the matrimonial home and however, son of the petitioners said that he was to go to Saudi Arabia and in need of `2,00,000/-. Father of the complainant somehow arranged `1,50,000/- and left the complainant and children in the matrimonial home. After some time son of 2 CRM No.M-17146 of 2010 the petitioners went abroad. However, after 2-3 months of the same behaviour of present petitioners became cruel towards the complainant and they started torturing her and raised demand of `1,00,000/- more. Even son of petitioners raised threat to complainant on telephone that she should meet the said demand of his parents i.e. the present petitioners, otherwise she would be turned out of the matrimonial home. On 22.01.2010 son of petitioners raised demand of `1,00,000/- on telephone and asked the complainant to handover the same to the petitioners and he also raised threat that if she would not meet the said demand then she would be thrown out of matrimonial home by giving beatings. When she told that her father was not in a position to meet the said demand, severe beatings were given by the present petitioners and she alongwith children was sent out of the matrimonial home. Ornaments were kept by the petitioners and demand of `1,00,000/- was raised failing which she would not be allowed to enter the house. A Panchayat was convened by father of the complainant on 25.01.2010 but to no effect. Demand of `1,00,000/- was raised even before Panchayat and threat was also raised by petitioners that they would kill the complainant if she would be sent to matrimonial home without `1,00,000/-. Even dowry articles were not returned. There are serious allegations against the present petitioners- accused hence, they are not entitled for extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioners –Mehram and Iddu is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order dated 09.06.2010 already granted in their favour stands vacated. 3 CRM No.M-17146 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 27, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4