IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1042 of 2010 Date of decision : 22.7.2010 Mukesh Sharma …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. TS Salana, DAG, Punjab. Mr. I.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 9.12.2009 for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station D-Division, Amritsar. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Indu Sharma who has alleged that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner Mukesh Sharma on 4.5.2003 at Arya Samaj Janjghar, Shakti Nagar, Amritsar. About 150 baratis took part in the marriage. At the time of marriage, her mother and brothers gave dowry (the list of which was attached) to the petitioner beyond their capacity. Before marriage also i.e. at Roka ceremony, Rs.15,000/- was spent and then the Shagan ceremony took place in which the petitioner was given one gold chain along with locket weighing 20 grams, one Titan watch and Rs.3100/- shagan. Besides, the father of the petitioner was Crl. Misc. No. M-1042 of 2010 [2] given Rs.1100/- in cash and his elder brother namely Gopinder Sharma was given Rs.501/- and his other brother namely Jatinder was given Rs.501/- as also his sister-in-law namely Pinky was also given Rs.501/-; besides, 31 boxes of sweets and one basket of fruits were given. The details of the articles which were given and the demand raised are mentioned in the petition. Learned State counsel submits that though the petitioner has joined the investigation, however he is not getting the gold ornaments recovered. The petitioner was initially granted interim bail on 14.1.2010 and the case was adjourned to 18.3.2010. On the said date, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time and the case was adjourned to 4.5.2010. On 4.5.2010, learned counsel for the respondent stated that although the petitioner had joined investigation, however, he was not co-operating and recovery of jewellery could not be effected. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he would again join investigation and produce the jewellery before the Investigating Officer. The case was then adjourned to 17.5.2010 and on that day, it was submitted by learned State counsel that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation and jewellery had not been recovered. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate was in personal difficulty. Accordingly, the petition was adjourned on 17.5.2010 to today. On 17.5.2010, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 19.5.2010 at 10.00 a.m. and continue to do so as and when called. Today, the position is same i.e. the petitioner though has joined the investigation, Crl. Misc. No. M-1042 of 2010 [3] however, he is not getting the jewellery recovered. It is stated that the petitioner be given another opportunity. In terms of the order dated 4.5.2010, it was categorically stated that the petitioner would join the investigation and produce jewellery before the Investigating Officer. This having not been done and to carry out effective investigation, it would be just and expedient that the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail is dismissed. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 22, 2010 amit