JUDGMENT Mr. Rekha Mittal, J. (Oral):- Sukhpal Singh son of Sukhjinder Singh has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail for offence under Sections 406, 498A, 323, 376, 34 IPC in FIR No.294 of 06.11.2012, registered in Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar City. 2. As per allegations brought forth by Gurinder Kaur wife of Sukhpal Singh, she solemnized marriage with Sukhpal Singh and was being harassed by her husband and father-in-law in connection with dowry. She learnt that her husband earlier performed two marriages and contracted marriage with her without getting divorce as well as keeping her in dark with regard to his previous marriages. She was subject to beatings, maltreatment and cruelty at the hands of her husband and his family members in connection with demand of dowry. 3. Notice of the application was given to the State. 4. Counsel for the State has submitted that marriage of the petitioner with the complainant was solemnized in January, 2009 and father of the petitioner had already died, which shows that false allegations have been levelled with regard to demand of dowry or cruelty by her father-inlaw. It is further submitted that as the petitioner-husband raised issue with regard to extra marital relationship of the complainant with one Bikramjit Singh and the petitioner lodged an FIR against said Bikramjit Singh for causing injuries to the petitioner and the petition for divorce was filed in 2012, the present FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the mother and brother of the petitioner, co-accused, have been allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail by the Courts. The petitioner is in custody since 19.03.2013 and he is no longer required for the purpose of investigation and is ready to face trial. 5. Counsel for the State has submitted that keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to offence under Section 376 IPC, he does not deserve to be extended the concession of bail. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Indisputably the petitioner and the complainant performed marriage in January, 2009. It is a debatable issue, to be decided during trial, if the complainant did not know about the earlier marriage of the petitioner. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Indisputably the petitioner and the complainant performed marriage in January, 2009. It is a debatable issue, to be decided during trial, if the complainant did not know about the earlier marriage of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 4 months. He is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. Challan has already been presented in the Court and the conclusion of trial is likely to take its time. 8. Without commenting upon merits of the controversy, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, subject to the following conditions:- i) he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (ii) he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. --------0.B.S.0------------