Crl.M.No.M-13629 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-13629 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2010 Rashidan and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.49, dated 4.3.2010, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Nagina, District Mewat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioners are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. As per the allegations, marriage of complainant was solemnized with son of petitioners, namely, Rasid on 8.3.2009. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given, detail of which has been given in the FIR itself. It has been mentioned that petitioners and their son used to live together. They were not satisfied with the dowry. There was harassment of complainant on account of dowry. There was demand of one Bolero vehicle and Rs.1.00 lac in the dowry. When father of complainant had shown his inability to meet the said demand, complainant and her father were abused. On 27.2.2010, severe beatings were given to the complainant and she was turned out of the matrimonial home in three clothes by raising threat that she would be killed if she would come without Bolero vehicle and Rs.1.00 lac. The panchayat was convened by father of the complainant Crl.M.No.M-13629 of 2010 (O&M) -2- on 5.2.2010 and he requested the accused to rehabilitate the complainant in matrimonial home. However even in the Panchayat, they were abused. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners-accused, though they were directed to join the investigation. Even the main accused, i.e., husband of complainant has not been arrested so far. 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- Rashidan and Yunus for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. Interim order already granted in favour of the petitioners is vacated. 26.8.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge