Crl. Misc. No.M-24427 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-24427 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.10.2010 Nirmla Devi .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.C.Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in the case, which has been registered against her on 02.08.2010 on the statement of Smt.Harsh Sharma, who is daughter-in-law of the petitioner. As per allegations in the FIR it has inter alia been alleged by the complainant that she was harassed in connection with demands for dowry. Besides, her articles have been misappropriated. It is alleged that gold ear-tops were given to the petitioner as also to Nisha and Asha who are the husband's sisters of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the gold ear-tops, which are alleged to have been given to the petitioner, have been recovered by the Police. Besides, it is submitted that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, vide order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) while graning bail to Sunil Sharma (son of the petitioner) has observed that recovery of dowry articles in the case has Crl. Misc. No.M-24427 of 2010 ::2:: already been effected and no other recovery of any kind is to be effected. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that Sunil Sharma made a statement on 10.08.2010 that he was not aware of T.V., Fridge, Washing Machine and gold set. His mother was aware of these articles and also as to where she had kept the same. Therefore, the said articles are to be recovered from the petitioner, who is the mother of Sunil Sharma. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) has been passed on the basis of the statement made by the Sunil Sharma (son of the petitioner) on 10.08.2010. In terms of the said statement and in terms of the order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) while allowing the bail to Sunil Sharma (son of the petitioner), it was observed that recovery of the dowry articles has been effected and no recovery of any kind is to be effected. Keeping in view the fact that Sunil Kumar (son of the petitioner) has already been granted bail vide order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) and it has also been observed therein that nothing is to be recovered, it would be just and expedient to confirm the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 23.08.2010. Accordingly, the interim bail granted on 23.08.2010 is made absolute. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. (S.S. SARON) October 04, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet