IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-4101 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 11, 2010 Parveen Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.154 dated 16.12.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered with Police Station, Nathana, District Bathinda. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner got married with Usha Rani, daughter of the complainant, on 13.10.2008. The parents of Usha Rani concealed a very important fact from the petitioner that Usha Rani Crl. Misc. No. M-4101 of 2010 [2] was suffering from Epilepsy. This fact having come to the notice of the petitioner after marriage, the petitioner could not adjust with Usha Rani in matrimonial alliance. A number of panchayat meetings were convened. Petition for divorce was filed by the petitioner on 20.7.2009. Learned counsel states that the petitioner had no intention of retaining any of the dowry articles or gifts and therefore, he filed a civil suit on 12.11.2009 with the plea that the defendant-wife be directed to take away the dowry articles. Learned counsel for the respondent- complainant states that complaint in regard to commission of offence was made before filing of the civil suit. The fact that Usha Rani suffers from Epilepsy is also not made out from the documents. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from Major Singh, Sub Inspector, states that indeed Usha Rani suffers from Epilepsy. It has also been stated that all the articles of dowry have been recovered other than cash amounting to Rs.61,000/-. I have considered the rival contentions. Crl. Misc. No. M-4101 of 2010 [3] It is not in dispute that civil suit was filed by the petitioner on 12.11.2009 whereas the FIR came into being on 16.12.2009. Merely because the complaint was pending, would not mean that the petitioner, infact, had no intention of returning the articles. It transpired during investigation that the petitioner has returned all the articles through the investigating agency. The factum of Usha Rani suffering from Epilepsy is also confirmed by the investigating agency. Under these circumstances, it would be for the Trial Court to consider as to whether there was only matrimonial dispute/ dispute on account of any suppressed fact or offences have been committed as alleged in the FIR. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances given out above, the petition is allowed. Order dated 18.2.2010 is hereby made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:- “(i) The petitioner shall make himself available for in- terrogation as and when required; Crl. Misc. No. M-4101 of 2010 [4] (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person ac- quainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the pre- vious permission of the Court.” This order shall enure till 15 days after the filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within which period, the petitioner shall be re- quired to seek regular bail. (AJAI LAMBA) March 11, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?