Mr. Devinder Gupta, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition for grant of bail under Section439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. The facts of the case are that on the complaint of Mrs. Paramjit Kaur, who is apractising Advocate at Tis Hazari in Delhi, a case under Sections 406 and 498-Aof Indian Penal Code was registered which is the subject matter of FIR No. 98/94, Police Stationanand Parbat, West Distt, New Delhi. ( 2 ) DURING the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that or additionalallegations fresh charges have been levelled against the petitioner under Sections420,494 and 495 of IPC. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is also a practising Advocate and he was earlier practisingin Punjab and had shifted his practice to Delhi in the year 1991 and had beenstaying with one Mrs. Harbans Kaur as a paying guest since she was his neighbourin Punjab. ( 4 ) ON 4/07/1993, petitioner married Paramjit Kaur, but the marriage couldnot prove successful since both of them developed strained relations whichultimately led to the filing of this complain by the complainant. The petitioner wasarrested on 14/05/1994. In order to get recovered certain dowry articles, theduty Magistrate remanded him to police custody for two days and since 16thmay, 1994, he is in judicial custody. An attempt to obtain bail failed whenpetitioner s application was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 20thmay, 1994. The petitioner has reproduced the order refusing grant of bail to him. The petitioner has contended that prima facie no case under Section 420 is madeout and Sections 494 and 495 are bailable. The Additional Sessions Judge whiledeclining to grant bail observed that Section 495 IPC would be attracted whereearlier marriage was concealed. Ingredients of Section 415 IPC which definescheating read with Section 420 IPC would also be attracted and there is no bar inproceeding under the said provisions. Another consideration which prevailedwith the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi is that the other co-accused Harbanskaur is absconding and is not traceable and the entirjewellary is stated to havebeen removed. ( 5 ) MY attention has now been drawn to a copy of the order passed on 27thmay, 1994 by which Harbans Kaur has been granted interim bail and she has beendirected to join investigation in connection with the case in question. ( 5 ) MY attention has now been drawn to a copy of the order passed on 27thmay, 1994 by which Harbans Kaur has been granted interim bail and she has beendirected to join investigation in connection with the case in question. ( 6 ) I have heard the arguments at length and Shri H. Singh, Advocate onbehalf of the State has addressed the arguments. Mr. K. K. Sud, Advocateappearing for Paramjit Kaur has also been permitted to address arguments. ( 7 ) IT is contended on behalf of the complainant that copy of the order passedby Additional Sessions Judge has not been appended and the petitioner has notdisclosed the fact that after the dismissal of earlier application for bail, petitionerhas filed fresh application for grant of bail before Additional Sessions Judge andit is fixed for 4th June, 1994, on that basis alone this petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) IT has been submitted that by concealing the fact of the earlier twomarriages, the petitioner contracted the third marriage with Paramjit Kaur andin case bail is granted, the petitioner is likely to cause bodily harm to Paramjitkaur, who has before arrest given beating to her. ( 9 ) AS noticed above, the petitioner and the complainant are the Advocatesand the petitioner is in judicial custody since 16th May, 1994 and other co-accusedhas been granted interim bail and is available for interrogation since 27th May,1994. ( 10 ) THE fact that copy of the order refusing grant of bail has not beenappended cannot be a ground to dismiss the bail application. It is not disputedthat the order in verbitum has been reproduced in the body of the petition. Theauthenticity of the order is not disputed. In these circumstances, filingseparately a copy of such order cannot be fatal to the maintainability of thisbail application. ( 11 ) AT the very outset when it was pointed out that the petitioner hadnot disclosed the fact of having again moved the Sessions Court for grant of bailand the bail application was coming for arguments on 4th June, 1994, learnedcounsel for the petitioner stated that he has instructions not to press the saidapplication. ( 11 ) AT the very outset when it was pointed out that the petitioner hadnot disclosed the fact of having again moved the Sessions Court for grant of bailand the bail application was coming for arguments on 4th June, 1994, learnedcounsel for the petitioner stated that he has instructions not to press the saidapplication. Even if this fact is not disclosed, in view of the statement that sucha application will not be pressed, I do not consider that non-disclosure of thisfact alone will be sufficient ground to refuse the grant of bail, in case thepetitioner is otherwise entitled to grant of bail in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. In Mohan Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1978 SC 1095 ,the Apex Court declined to cancel the grant of bail on the ground that the accusedhad not disclosed before the Sessions Court that he had moved for bail in the Highcourt. On the ratio of this judgment, the objections of the respondent has no force. ( 12 ) IT is stated on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is likely tomisuse the liberty granted to him. The objection is also un-founded sinc e nomaterial has been brought out to my notice that the petitioner is likely to commita crime if bail is granted to him or that he will mis-use the bail. The police hadsufficient time to carry on investigation since the matter was reported on 12thmay, 1994. Search was conducted and the petitioner was arrested on 14th May,1994 and since 16th May, 1994 he is in judicial custody. ( 13 ) IN Gurcharan Singh v. State, AIR 1978 SC 179 guidelines have been laiddown for the exercise of judicial discretion while granting bail. One of thecircumstances is that unless exceptional circumstances are brought out to thenotice of the Court which may defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the Courtwill not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offencepunishable with death or imprisonment for life. ( 14 ) HAVING considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature ofoffences alleged and the background of the parties, I consider it to be a fit case forgrant of bail. Consequently, I allow the application and direct the petitioner to berelead on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. ( 14 ) HAVING considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature ofoffences alleged and the background of the parties, I consider it to be a fit case forgrant of bail. Consequently, I allow the application and direct the petitioner to berelead on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- withone surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. Thepetitioner will, however, join investigation as and when required to do so. Theapplication stands disposed of.