Crl. Misc. No. M-32718 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-32718 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 21, 2011 Manjit Singh Shahi …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.J.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Through instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for concession of pre-arrest bail in a case which was registered at the instance of complainant- Tarlok Singh, father of Arshpreet Kaur alleging that marriage of petitioner and Arshpreet Kaur was solemnized after they came in contact with each other on internet. Dowry was demanded and given. The daughter of complainant is disabled from both legs. She is serving in a bank at Canada and is getting 5000 dollars per Crl. Misc. No. M-32718 of 2011 [2] month as salary. The petitioner became ready to marry Arshpreet Kaur. Family members of the petitioner also came in contact with Arshpreet Kaur through internet. Marriage was fixed through internet. Arshpreet Kaur came to India from Canada on July 4, 2007. On November 6, 2007, the petitioner met Arshpreet Kaur and took her to his village in District Fatehgarh Sahib to introduce her to his parents. Wife of the complainant received telephone call from Arshpreet Kaur that she had reached the house of the petitioner and his family. The complainant’s daughter while crying had disclosed to the complainant that she had been sexually exploited by the petitioner. She also disclosed to brother-in-law of the complainant Ravinder Singh and his wife about the rape having been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner had married Arshpreet Kaur on November 13, 2007 at Sahnewal. From November 13, 2007 to November 30, 2007, the daughter of the complainant stayed at Village Hargana. The petitioner and his family members started demanding more dowry and started humiliating her. On November 30, 2007, Arshpreet Kaur had gone back to Canada. Petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.50 lacs as expenses for going to Canada and for meeting the other debts of the family. The daughter of the complainant sent about Rs.45 lacs in instalments. Sponsorship was sent by daughter of the complainant. The petitioner reached Canada. When daughter of the complainant had gone to Airport to take petitioner, he did not meet her. Demand of Rs.50 lacs was again raised by the petitioner. Petitioner had been sent back to India under fraud Marriage Act on December 8, 2010. Thereafter the petitioner and his family members started Crl. Misc. No. M-32718 of 2011 [3] threatening the complainant’s daughter. Mr.J.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage of the petitioner to Arshpreet Kaur was a marriage of convenience. The allegations of rape have been incorporated as an after- thought because in the first complaint filed by the complainant on January 19, 2011, there were no allegations of rape or maltreatment but subsequently the allegations have been manipulated in order to give it a more serious colour. Counsel vehemently urged that the petitioner was staying in England since the year 2001. He came in contact with Arshpreet Kaur in the year 2006 on the basis of correspondence through internet. The petitioner decided to marry Arshpreet Kaur. It was argued by counsel for the petitioner that no one from the family of the complainant had attended marriage. All the arrangements were made by the petitioner himself. The complainant’s daughter had started sending money in the petitioner’s account with ICICI Bank. Money received by the petitioner used to be delivered to the maternal uncle (Mama) of Arshpreet Kaur. The petitioner and his family members have been made a victim of circumstances. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, gone through the record and seen the complaint made by the complainant to SSP, Patiala, annexure P-1 to contend that in the said allegation that there is no allegation of dowry or rape. The petitioner, no doubt, has obtained divorce from the complainant’s daughter but the allegations of demand of dowry, cheating and sexual exploitation are on the face of it are very serious. There are allegations of misappropriation of sum of around Rs.45 lacs by the Crl. Misc. No. M-32718 of 2011 [4] petitioner after having got the same transferred in his account. It will be premature to presume that the money sent by the complainant’s daughter has been transferred to maternal uncle of Arshpreet Kaur. No document could be referred to by the petitioner to establish prima facie the handing over of any money to the maternal uncle of Arshpreet Kaur. No doubt, the petitioner, under the interim directions has joined investigation but no extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to confirm the interim orders. Dismissed. December 21, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE