Crl.Misc No M- 8651 of 2010 Surender Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab PRESENT: Mr.Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G.Punjab. Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the complainant. *** The present petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been moved on behalf of Surender Kumar and Kamla Devi, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant in case FIR No. 41 dated 4.3.2010 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station, Salem Tabri,District Ludhiana. Notice of motion was issued in the case on 23.3.2010 and while issuing notice of motion, the following contention of learned counsel for the petitioners was noted down: “ Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners who are, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the complainant have falsely been implicated in this case as there is no specific allegation against them and the dispute was with the husband only. Learned counsel further contends that earlier the matter was compromised on two occasions and when the said compromise was not executed between the parties, the present FIR has been registered. Notice of motion to A.G. Punjab for 3.5.2010. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on Crl.Misc No M- 8651 of 2010 [2] interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. They shall joint the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. They shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., which are as under:- (i)that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii)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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii)that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” During the pendency of the present petition, efforts were made to settle the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that recovery has not been effected from the petitioners and husband of the complainant has left India and the petitioners are aware about the whereabouts of husband of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are poor persons and are not aware about the whereabouts of their son. Mr.Vishal Munjal, learned Addl.A.G.Punjab submits that as per statement of Dimple, sister-in-law of the complainant, the husband had gone abroad on 28th January,2010. However, Dimple is also present in the Crl.Misc No M- 8651 of 2010 [3] Court and has specifically stated that no such statement was made by her and her signatures were obtained by the police on blank paper. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 23.3.2010, although the petitioners have joined the investigation but recovery of some of the dowry articles has not been effected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that nothing was given to them at the time of marriage and the articles mentioned in the list have not been handed over to them. It has been brought to the notice of Court that the petitioners are residing in a house which has two portions and the complainant who is having a child of three months, has no place to live in and if some accommodation in the house is given, she has no objection in granting bail to the petitioners. Both the petitioners are present in the Court and have stated that they have no objection in allowing the complainant to stay in other portion of the house but they are not in a positon to tell the whereabouts of their son and are not involved in any manner in the alleged allegations made in the FIR. Since the petitioners have agreed to allow the complainant to stay in the house and complainant has also no objection in granting anticipatory bail, the interim directions issued by this Court on 23.3.2010 are made absolute. However, it is made clear that in case the complainant has any grouse subsequently or she is not allowed to reside in the same house then, she would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioners. Crl.Misc No M- 8651 of 2010 [4] The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 19, 2010 JUDGE raghav