CRM-M786 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Sept 09,2009. Pushpa Gupta -- Petitioner vs. The State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu,Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Saurabh Goel,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG,Haryana. Mr.Anurag Jain,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) apprehending her arrest in case registered vide FIR No.871 dated 28.11.2008 under Sections 498-A/406/120-B IPC at Police Station, City Hisar. The complaint has been filed by Ritu, wife of Rajiv Gupta, who has stated that her marriage was solemnized with Rajiv Gupta on 23.6.2007 with great pomp and show at Karnal. The dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioner in the presence of Sanjay Garg, Advocate, Raj Kumar Mahipal, Anil Jain and Roshan Lal Mittal etc. It was also stated that CRM-M786 of 2009 2 a sum of Rs. 12 lacs was spent on the marriage. The allegation against the petitioner is that she had tortured the complainant mentally and physically for the purpose of dowry and had also usurped her Istridhan. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Hisar on 11.12.2008. During the course of investigation, the police has found the father of Rajiv Gupta to be innocent. However, Rajiv Gupta (husband) was arrested and has been released on regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no specific allegations against the petitioner and the FIR is a counter blast to the petition filed by Rajiv Gupta (husband) against the complainant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an old lady and is a heart patient. It is further submitted that she has joined the investigation. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that there are clear allegations of entrustment of Istridhan to the petitioner and also of its usurption which constitutes an offence under Section 406 IPC and allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty both mental and physical constitutes the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, argued that in the list of dowry articles, nothing has been recovered so far, though, there are photographs showing handing over gold ornaments. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that there are allegations which constitute the offences CRM-M786 of 2009 3 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against the petitioner as well as the fact that nothing has been recovered so far of the dowry articles, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Sept 09,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge