In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-33285 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:23.2.2010 Sanjiv Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered against the petitioner by his wife-Smt. Sushila Devi-complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 14.12.2006 and at the time of their marriage her parents gave her dowry. After marriage the in-laws of the complainant harassed her and were demanding dowry from her parents which could not be fulfilled. It is alleged that the husband's elder brother's wife (Jethani), namely, Kavita Devi had brought a motorcycle from her parents and the complainant was also asked to bring a motorcycle, otherwise she would live in the house as a servant. The complainant along with her son Rohan lived in the house of her parents. When the complainant along with her son went to her in-laws' house they turned her out after beating her. They asked her to bring more dowry. The Cr. Misc. No.M-33285 of 2009 [2] in-laws of the complainant threatened her that if she came back they would kill her. The in-laws of the complainant had raised a demand of Rs.1,10,000/-. Accordingly, it was requested that FIR be registered. Notice of motion was issued on 26.11.2009 and in the meantime, it was directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail. The co-accused of the petitioner i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant Smt. Sushila Devi have been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail vide order dated 15.1.2010. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant. On the last date of hearing, it was stated by the learned counsel for the State that three gold items i.e. one ring, one nose ring (Nath) and one lady set; besides washing machine and fridge were to be recovered from the petitioner. The said items have not been recovered. However, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Head Constable Pavinderjit Singh, Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, has accepted that the complainant has not been able to submit any material with regard to purchase of the said items before her marriage. The petitioner has otherwise joined the investigation. The FIR is the outcome of a matrimonial dispute. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the interim order dated 26.11.2009 is made absolute. Accordingly, the interim order dated 26.11.2009 is made absolute. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. February 23, 2010. (S.S. Saron) *hsp* Judge