CRM-M 14088 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on December 10,2009. Manjit Saini -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Rajinder Goel,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.R.S.Rawat,AAG,Punjab. Mr.Surinder Dhull,Advocate,for respondent No.2/complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.'), for pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.164 dated 23.4.2009 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station, Mohali, District SAS Nagar. Mohali. The complainant is the wife of the petitioner, who is arrayed as respondent No.2, in this petition. In the FIR, allegations have been made of maltreating the complainant with cruelty for demand of dowry and also usurption of her istridhan. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had approached the Court below for pre-arrest bail which had been dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Mohali, vide his order dated 14.5.2009. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a divorce petition against the complainant/respondent No.2, on the ground of adultery and cruelty on 13.12.2008, therefore, the present FIR has been lodged on 23.4.2009 as a counter blast. It has been further contended that the complainant CRM-M 14088 of 2009 (O&M) -2- has been residing in the matrimonial home whereas the petitioner has been turned out, therefore, there is no question of misappropriation of dowry articles. The petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and it has been prayed that since the dowry articles have been recovered, therefore, the order of interim bail may be made absolute. This Court had tried to effect compromise between the parties in either way but ultimately, it has been found that there is no chance of compromise either by way of separation or by way of reunion between the parties. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there are specific allegations of harassment and cruelty of the complainant at the hands of the petitioner which constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC and also of usurption of her istridhan/dowry articles which constitutes an offence under Section 406 IPC. Learned counsel for the State further submits that gold ornaments and electronic items are yet to be recovered. After taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as emerging from the record and without expressing anything on the merit, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, this bail petition is hereby dismissed. December 10,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge