Crl.M.No.M-26129 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-26129 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 8, 2010 Simrat Pal Singh and another .....Petitioners v. The State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.46674 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-26129 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.58, dated 20.4.2010, under Sections 498-A, 324, 34 IPC (Section 307 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Muktsar. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioners-accused are that daughter of the complainant, namely, Veerpal Kaur, was married with petitioner No.1 about 1-1/4 years ago. Petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of Veerpal Kaur. Just after 2-1/2 months of the marriage, petitioners alongwith father-in-law of Veerpal Kaur started harassing her on account of dowry. Complainant had taken some persons to the house of petitioners about 3-4 times to settle the matter and however, every time, they used to assure the complainant that they would not harass his daughter again. A son was also born to daughter of the complainant and at that time a demand for computer was raised, which was fulfilled by the complainant by giving Rs.20,000/- and however, demand further increased. On 6.4.2010, Crl.M.No.M-26129 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant alongwith Kirpal Singh, and Pamma Singh had visited the house of petitioners, however, son-in-law of the complainant, i.e., petitioner no.1 scolded him and told him as to why he had visited his house as he was a poor person. He requested, the father of petitioner no.1 to make him understand. However, he also told the complainant that he would be taught a lesson for bringing Panchayat several times to his house. Petitioner No.1 pushed him, petitioner no.2 caught hold of the complainant and father of petitioner no.1 gave four kapa blows to him. He could be saved due to intervention of Kirpal Singh. However, father of petitioner no.1 again pulled him and his daughter by heir and gave slaps to her. Both of them were got admitted in hospital by Kirpal Singh. Hence, there are specific allegations of mental as well as physical harassment and cruelty being co]mmitted upon the complainant and his daughter by both the petitioners. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners- Simrat Pal Singh and Sukhcharanjit Kaur for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 8.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge