M.M.S. Bedi, J.@mdashThe petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of complainant Baninder Kaur alleging that she was married to the petitioner on 14.06.2009 and huge amount was spent on various marriage ceremonies by fulfilling all the wishes and demands of her in-laws, but the petitioner and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry articles and the petitioner used to beat the complainant. He insisted that the complainant should get more money from her father. After giving beatings by the petitioner to the complainant on 26.07.2009, she was left at her father�s house in Chandigarh. He also slapped the complainant in front of her parents. The parents of the complainant tried their level best to settle the matter, but the petitioner insisted that in case she wants to stay in the matrimonial home, the demand of Rs. 5 lacs should be met. All the gold ornaments which were given to the complainant at the time of marriage, have not been returned to her.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the parents of the petitioner have been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail and that no recovery is to be effected. The complainant was impleaded as respondent No. 2 and she was directed to appear in the Court for amicable settlement. She appeared in the Court and reported that her gold sets have been taken by parents of the petitioner and have not been returned to her.
3. Counsel for the petitioner even offered to pay money to the complainant in lieu of any dowry article, but the complainant claims that the gold ornaments retained by the petitioner and his parents are much more worth than the money offered. It was informed that the petitioner had written a complaint against the father of the complainant to the Income tax Authorities alleging that he had concealed the income from Income tax Authorities as the source for purchase of gold ornaments has not been accounted for.
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the complainant and the State counsel.
5. The petitioner was married to the complainant only on 14.06.2009 and she was turned out of matrimonial house on 26.07.2009. The said fact is sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion regarding the allegations of demand of dowry. The act and conduct of the petitioner has been established to be unfair and criminal. It is not expected that within few months of the marriage, the complainant would take back all the dowry articles. It is a case where recoveries are yet to be effected.
6. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre arrest bail to the petitioner.
7. Dismissed.
