Crl.M.No.M-12345 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-12345 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 30, 2010 Minakshi Gupta .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.768, dated 23.10.2009, under Sections 307, 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda, District Bathinda. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioner is mother-in-law of the complainant. Husband of complaint is residing in Malayisa. Co-accused, i.e., father-in-law of the complainant and husband of present petitioner has already been granted interim bail by this Court on ground of illness. None of the accused has been arrested so far. The marriage of the complainant had taken place on 20.7.2007 with Lokesh Gupta, son of present petitioner. There are specific allegations of harassment and cruelty against petitioner-accused. As per the allegations, about Rs.30 lacs were spent on marriage by parents of the complainant. However, in-laws of the complainant were not satisfied and further demands were raised. There are specific allegations raising demand of dowry by present petitioner-accused as well from parents of the complainant. Earlier the matter was settled with the help of relatives and the complainant was rehabilitated in matrimonial home and she was taken to Crl.M.No.M-12345 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Malaysia by her husband on 24.3.2008 and, however, thereafter demand of Rs.15 lacs more was raised and on her failure she was given beatings by her husband and on 23.9.2008, she was sent back to India. Another Rs.3 lacs were arranged and the complainant was sent back to Malaysia. However, in-laws of the complainant were not satisfied and another demand of Rs.12 lacs was raised by them. Rs.5 lacs more were paid by parents of the complainant and she was sent to Malaysia on 9.2.2009. However, there was no change in the behavior of her husband and demand of remaining amount of Rs.7 lac was persisted. Panchayat was convened and complainant was again settled in matrimonial home on 31.8.2009. Golden ornaments were not returned by petitioner on the plea that same were lying with Niti and Anita Rani and there are specific allegations that golden ornaments of the complainant has been misappropriated by the present petitioner. On 12.10.2009 parents of complainant were abused by her in-laws including the present petitioner-accused and she was given severe beatings. Attempt was made even to administer poison to her. There are serious allegations against the petitioner-accused. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Minakshi Gupta, for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 30 .4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge