Cr.Misc. M 7977 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 7977 of 2010 Date of decision:- 6.12.2011 Kanta Devi Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate. Mr. Kirat Singh, DAG, Punjab Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. This order will dispose of two connected petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by Kanta Devi (Cr.Misc. M 7977 of 2010) and Anil Kaushik (Cr.Misc. M 17674 of 2010). The petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case rgistered at the instance of Meenu alleging that her husband Anil Kaushik and his family members had maltreated her for having not met the demand of dowry. The dowry articles have allegedly been misappropriated. The petitions for pre-arrest bail have been opposed by counsel for the complainant alleging that petitioner Anil Kaushik had got notice of motion issued in this case by wrongly representing that he is ready to amicably settle the dispute. In this context order dated 28.6.2010 has been referred to. It has been submitted that after getting the interim relief, instead of amicably settling the dispute, petitioner Anil Kaushik had filed a divorce petition. A copy of the divorce petition has been placed on record. Cr.Misc. M 7977 of 2010 2 Learned State counsel has opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail on the ground that recoveries of the dowry articles are yet to be effected in this case. Only a fraction of the gold articles, handed over in dowry to the petitioners, stand recovered. Remaining jewellery and house hold articles are yet to be recovered Counsel for petitioner Anil Kaushik has vehemently opposed the contention of the counsel for the complainant and the State counsel that recoveries are yet to be effected. Mr. Majithia has urged that a truck load of the articles stand returned along with a car. The petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant for the alleged dowry articles, which are yet to be recovered. Enough time was given to the parties to amicably settle the matter. The matter was also sent to the Mediation Centre. Since Petitioner Anil Kaushik has already filed a divorce petition, chances of resuming cohabitation by the complainant seem to be not possible. Without entering into the controversy whether dowry articles have been recovered or are yet to be recovered, it is deemed appropriate to protect the liberty of the petitioners by granting pre-arrest bail to them subject to return of the dowry articles as the petitioner Anil Kaushik, present in the court, has offered to compensate the complainant subject to some security. Prima facie it appears that petitioner Kanta Devi , mother of petitioner Anil Kaushik, had been living separately . The couple seems to have been residing at Mumbai and Hyderabad at different occasions. Both the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that they will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with Cr.Misc. M 7977 of 2010 3 evidence or hamper the investigation. Petitioner Anil Kaushik will pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs to the complainant in the shape of a bank draft and hand over the same to the investigating officer within a period of two months. The investigating officer will hand over the same to the complainant. This amount will not prejudice the right of the petitioners or the complainant and will be adjustable at the time of any final matrimonial settlement between the parties. In case of violation of any of the above said conditions, the complainant will be entitled to seek cancellation of bail. December 6 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE