IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1054 of 2009. Date of decision: December 15, 2009. Gajendra Singh & anr. …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioners on bail in F.I.R. No. 132 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi, under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners are the parents of Dr. Robinder Singh husband of the complainant Dr. Harmanjit Kaur. It has been stated in the bail application that Dr.Harmanjit Kaur had filed a complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh, who had sent the complaint to Police Station, Baddi under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and thereupon FIR was registered at Police Station, Baddi. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that petitioners have joined the investigation. The petitioners are aged about 72 and 68 years respectively. It has been submitted that no recovery is to be made from the petitioners. The petitioners had earlier filed bail application, which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 2.12.2009 for non-appearance of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has ultimately prayed for grant of bail to petitioners, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that after the marriage the accused- petitioners had demanded rupees ten lacs and Honda City car from the complainant on account of dowry which she could not arrange and pay to the accused- petitioners. The complainant on 28.9.2006 when she was pregnant was turned out of the matrimonial home. The complainant in order to save the marriage had arranged some money and deposited Rs.8,33,000/- in the joint account of complainant and her husband. The husband of the complainant had withdrawn the said amount. In the status report, it has also been stated that on 26.11.2009 the petitioners had joined the investigation. On 27.11.2009, the petitioners had returned some jewellery and other dowry articles to the complainant. However, some gold items mentioned in the status report have not been returned to the complainant. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that keeping in view the gravity of offence, the petitioners may not be released on bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. …3… 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the status report, there is no allegation that any specific amount was given to the petitioners nor there is any allegation that gold items, which have not been allegedly returned to the complainant and mentioned in the status report, were actually given by the complainant or on her behalf by anyone to the petitioners. The petitioners have joined the investigation. There is no allegation that petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 132 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi, under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The petitioner No. 2 is a woman, therefore, she shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with law. 5. The observations made in the order are for the disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Dasti copy on usual terms. December 15, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.