IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 692 of 2009 Date of decision: August 21, 2009. Rajender Singh Maingi …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No. 288/09 registered on 29.7.2009 at Police Station, Sadar Kullu under Sections 498-A, 506, 406, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. On 29.7.2009 Smt. Rubal Sapra complainant reported the matter at Police Station, Kullu and stated that she married to Kanwar Preet Singh on 6.1.2008 and her husband is working in London for the last five years. She has alleged that after the marriage she lived for 40 days with her husband, who thereafter had gone to London with the promise that within two months he would make arrangement for taking the complainant to London. The complainant lived with her mother-in-law Gurinder Kaur, sister-in-law Manleen Kaur. She waited for visa to Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… London. In May 2008 her mother-in-law and sister-in-law demanded rupees three lakhs at the instance of her husband. The father of the complainant paid rupees three lakhs to mother-in-law of the complainant for arranging visa to complainant for going to London. The husband of the complainant on the occasion of Karva Chauth came on 15 days leave from London. On Diwali eve, the husband of the complainant, maternal uncle Jagjit Singh, maternal aunt (Mami) Rani and mother-in-law of the complainant were in the house, the male members took liquor and they commented on the parents of the complainant. They accused the complainant for bringing less dowry and not bringing car. The complainant objected, on this maternal uncle and Mami told the complainant why she had not fulfilled their demand. The petitioner gave two slaps to complainant and abused her. The complainant objected to this also. The husband and mother-in-law of the complainant gave her beatings. She narrated the incident on the next day to her father. Thereupon, her brother came to Jullundhar and she returned to her parents house. The complainant has levelled allegations against her husband, mother-in- law, sister in law for treating the complainant with cruelty both mental and physical. As per status report the allegations against the petitioner are with respect to the incident which allegedly took place on Diwali eve. In the status report, it has been stated that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds. …3… The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the basis of status report. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. As per status report, the allegations against the petitioner are only with respect to some incident allegedly took place on the eve of Diwali. In the status report, it has been stated that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has 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 petitioner in FIR No. 288/09 registered on 29.7.2009 at Police Station, Sadar Kullu under Sections 498-A, 506, 406, 34 IPC, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioner shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. . 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. August 21, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.