Criminal Misc.-M No. 26754 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.09.2011 1. Criminal Misc.-M No. 26754 of 2011(O&M) Avninder Singh Cheema ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent 2. Criminal Misc.-M No. 27277 of 2011(O&M) Rajinder Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate for the complainant. …. RAJESH BINDAL, J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions, as the same arise out of one FIR. Petitioner in Criminal Misc.-M No.26754 of 2011 is the brother-in-law of the complainant and petitioners in Criminal Misc.-M No.27277 of 2011 are the parents-in-law of the complainant. Prayer in the present petitions is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. It is a case, in which the complainant was already NRI. She solemnized marriage with Narvinder Singh Cheema on 27.11.2005 and the same was registered on 7.12.2005. It is stated that after marriage, the wife went to USA on 7.4.2006 and her husband followed on 27.6.2006. Since then both are living in USA. It is admitted case of the complainant that after marriage, for two years, the couple lived happily, meaning thereby in USA. The present FIR was got registered by the complainant on 21.06.2011, when Criminal Misc.-M No. 26754 of 2011 2 she came to India for a period of about one month. She got the present FIR registered and then again left back for USA. On the basis of the facts stated in the FIR itself, it is admitted that couple lived happily for two years after marriage in USA and thereafter, the couple never visited India, meaning thereby all incidents as alleged in the FIR had taken place in USA. The complainant came to India only in March, 2011 and left back after getting the FIR registered. Even her father is also stated to be in USA. The present petition is being contested by the counsel on the basis of power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of her relative. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. Interim bail granted to the petitioners in both the petitions is made absolute. The petitions stand disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 28.09.2011 sharmila