Crl.M.No.18745-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.18745-M of 2010 Date of Order: 12.10.2010 Surinder Kaur .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vivek K Thakur, Advocate for the complainant. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C on behalf of mother-in-law is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.5 dated 16.5.2010 under Sections 323/324/498-A/34 IPC, P.S Begowal, District Kapurthala. As per allegations in the FIR lodged by the complainant, she was harassed and beaten up at the hands of the petitioner as well as her co- accused on account of bringing insufficient dowry. It is stated that the marriage of the complainant-Manpreet Kaur was solemnized with Daljit Singh on 22.3.2010. It is further stated that 3-4 days prior to the marriage, a demand for 25 tollas of gold was raised by her- in-laws, however, soon after the marriage, she was turned out of her house on 15.5.2010 while giving severe beatings on account of insufficient dowry. Husband-Daljit Singh to evade the process of law fled away to Spain. As per allegations in the FIR lodged by the complainant, she was harassed and beaten up at the hands of the petitioner as well as her co- accused-husband on account of bringing insufficient dowry on the day of occurrence on 15.5.2010. Crl.M.No.18745-M of 2010 #2# During the proceedings of this court, mother-in-law and the complainant were present in court and efforts were made for reconciliation. Sufficient time was also granted to do the needful. At the time of hearing today, I find that attitude of the petitioner remains stubborn and uncooperative. Husband-Daljit Singh is also evading the investigation. Learned state counsel, on instructions from ASI Lakhwinder Singh, states that dowry articles including around 20 tollas of gold are yet to be recovered and for effective investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. It is also stated that as per MLR, there are five injuries on the person of the complainant inflicted by the accused on the day of occurrence. Keeping in view the allegations levelled in the FIR and the non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner, I find that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation. No ground for anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed. October 12, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE