CRM-M-20422 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-20422 of 2011 Date of Decision:07.11.2011 Surinder Kumari . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Atul Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.22 dated 30.05.2011 under Sections 406 & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Woman Patiala, District Patiala. The petitioner is on interim bail vide order dated 11.7.2011, pursuant to which she has already joined the investigation as conceded by learned counsel for the State, on instructions received from SI Mangaldeep Kaur. It has come on record, during the course of hearing that there is no chance of reconciliation as the husband of the complainant had already filed divorce petition. The complainant, however, alleged that her husband and his mother are rich people as they have their own house, a car and a plot. In view thereof, the petitioner was directed to file her affidavit. The affidavit dated 05.10.2011 was filed in Court in which it was alleged by the petitioner that she is owner in possession of one residential house No. MIG-427, Phase I, Urban Estate, Patiala measuring 125 Sq. Yds. which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 12.6.2006 for a sum of `3 lac which had already been mortgaged with the Punjab National Bank, Gur Mandi, Patiala against a loan of `6 CRM-M-20422 of 2011 - 2 - lac and is paying monthly installment of `5300/-. She also submits that she is getting pension of `250/- per month as widow pension from the Punjab Government and neither she nor her son has any immoveable property in their name. She also submits that her son owns one motor cycle, Model 1989, bearing registration No.PJI-9464. Learned counsel for the State was directed to verify the contents of the aforesaid affidavit through the Investigating Officer, who has submitted, on the instructions received from the Investigating Officer, that the contents of the affidavit are correct. While arguing on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation in the FIR are general in nature inasmuch as role attributed to the petitioner is only of domestic violence and not of demand of dowry or usurpation of dowry for which Section 406 IPC could be attracted. Learned counsel for the State has very fairly stated that the FIR is silent as far as the allegation of Section 406 IPC is concerned but has submitted that during investigation the complainant has submitted list of dowry articles but so far recovery is effected of one LCD from the husband, who was taken into custody and has been released on bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on the merits, order dated 11.7.2011 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 07, 2011 JUDGE Vivek