JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J (Oral) :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 19.10.2010 for the offences under sections 323,354,406,498-A,120-B IPC. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered against the petitioner by his wife Dr. Navdeep. It is alleged by the complainant that she was married by an arranged marriage with the petitioner on 9.12.2009. The petitioner and the complainant came in touch through newspaper. On the asking of the in-laws family of the complainant, the ring ceremony was organized at Presidency Hotel, Hoshiarpur. At that time, the father of the complainant gave a diamond ring and gold chain to the petitioner. Besides woollen suits to all the family members and amount of Rs. 11,000/- in cash was also given to the petitioner. At the time of marriage, the parents of the complainant made arrangements in Hollyhock Garden Palace. It is alleged that as per demands of the inlaws of the complainant, one gold Kara (Bracelet) to the petitioner, a gold ring to father-in-law of the complainant namely Ajit Singh, a gold ring to the maternal uncle of the petitioner and two gold sets were given to the complainant which included ear rings, necklace, tops, chain locket, two rings, besides attended to all the guests as per their wishes. However, after the marriage, the petitioner, the father-in-law of the complainant namely Ajit Singh, sister-in-law Jatinder Kaur and Manpreet Kaur wife of Ashwani Kumar started troubling the complainant by saying that she had brought inadequate dowry in the marriage and they had felt insulted in the society. The complainant was working as a Doctor and after marriage her husband and her father-in-law had been using her salary and the husband of the complainant had taken her ATM card from her. Besides other allegations have been made regarding demand of dowry and harassment caused. It is also alleged by the complainant that she was told that her husband was serving in the Merchant Navy but after marriage, he never went to join his duties and survived on her salary. Besides other allegations have been made regarding demand of dowry and harassment caused. It is also alleged by the complainant that she was told that her husband was serving in the Merchant Navy but after marriage, he never went to join his duties and survived on her salary. It is alleged that on 10.10.2010 at night, the parents and brother of the complainant on her asking came to her house to know about her well being and in their presence, the petitioner beat her, as a result of which she suffered injuries on her left arm near the elbow and right knee. Besides she suffered disc problem. Her parents got her admitted in K.D. Hospital. After treatment, her husband and father-in-law realised their mistake. The complainant went to her in-laws house and stayed there and thereafter on 19.10.2010 at 9.00 A.M., the husband of the complainant and her father-in-law in conspiracy with each other attacked her. The petitioner caught the complainant from her neck and throttled her and gave fist blows on the right side of the chest. The father-in-law of the complainant caught her from her legs and gave a danda blow which hit the complainant on her left leg below the knee and both of them threw her on the floor with force, as a result of which she suffered hurt on her back and head. The complainant informed her parents on phone and her parents, brother and other relatives came and seeing her serious condition, got her admitted in the Civil Hospital from where she has undergone treatment. 4. The petitioner is in custody since 20.10.2010. The custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. The police is to file the challan after investigation is complete. The prosecution is to establish its case after leading evidence. The injuries on the person of complainant Dr. Navdeep, as per her medico legal report dated 19.10.2010, are simple in nature. It has been opined that there are eight injuries on her person. Injuries No. 1,2,3 and 4, it is stated to be 24 hours earlier. Injury no. 5,6 and 8 are stated to be 4-6 days earlier and injury no.7 it is stated, cannot be ascertained. The injury no.5 is a bluish swelling on anterior aspect of left forearm middle 1/3. Injury no. Injuries No. 1,2,3 and 4, it is stated to be 24 hours earlier. Injury no. 5,6 and 8 are stated to be 4-6 days earlier and injury no.7 it is stated, cannot be ascertained. The injury no.5 is a bluish swelling on anterior aspect of left forearm middle 1/3. Injury no. 6 is bluish contusion 3 cm x 3 cm on the back of left elbow joint and injury no.8 is bluish swelling on the anterior aspect of the right knee joint. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant had an accident as she fell from scooter on 6.10.2010 and she was admitted in Primary Health Centre, Bhunga (Hoshiarpur) at 10.10. A.M. and it is recorded “as the history of fall from the scooter while saving cycle rider on the way”. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said injuries which the complainant had suffered on 6.10.2010 have also been got included in MLR and it is for the said reasons that injuries no. 5, 6 and 8 as mentioned, are 4-6 days earlier. According to the learned counsel for the complainant however the incident is of 19.10.2010 and in case the injuries No. 5,6 and 8 are 4-6 days earlier, the same would be up to 13.10.2010, whereas the accident regarding fall from scooter had occurred on 6.10.2010. 6. This aspect, however, is liable be considered on the basis of evidence that is to be led before the Trial Court and is not to be gone into at this stage. However, the injuries are simple in nature, besides the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 20.10.2010, it would be just and expedient that he is granted the concession of bail. 7. Accordingly, criminal miscellaneous is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing of personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. -------------0.N.K.0.-------------