M.M. Singh Bedi, J. 1. Petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of complainant SP (name concealed), a girl who had been meeting the complaint after roka ceremony. As per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant had been engaged with the petitioner by a pre-engagement roka ceremony held on 10.8.2014, when cash along with gold coins and other articles were given to the petitioner and his family members. The date of marriage was fixed as 30.11.2014 but the petitioner and his family members had started raising demands for the petitioner and their relations. Orders had been placed for preparation of jewellery as per the demands of the petitioner and his family members. A sum of ` 14 lacs had been paid as advance to the jewellers through account payee cheques by the father of the complainant. Jewellery items were taken by the petitioner for showing to his parents which items are still lying with the petitioner and his family members. Demand of BMW (SUV) car was made on 2.10.2014. The complainant was threatened that in case the demand of BMW (SUV) car was not met the marriage would be cancelled and future of the complainant would be jeopardised. Certain photographs of the complainant had also been clicked secretly by the petitioner. The petitioner threatened to make the said private photographs public. The petitioner used to indulge in making advances and physical contacts with the complainant on different occasions. On 7.10.2014, when the complainant had been called to the house of petitioner, while watching television with the complainant, the petitioner forcibly made an attempt to disrobe the complainant in an attempt to rape her and indecently touched the private parts of the body. An attempt was made to make the complainant sniff some white powder with one hand. Criminal force was used for outraging the modesty and in an attempt to rape. 2. On complainant having raised alarm and having made an attempt to escape to the drawing room, the parents of the complainant appeared and asked the complainant to take the incident lightly. The complainant returned back to her house. The petitioner made an attempt to follow her and threaten her not to disclose the incident to anyone. On 9.10.2014, the complainant along with her parents and other family members had gone to the house of the petitioner to complain about his behavior. The complainant returned back to her house. The petitioner made an attempt to follow her and threaten her not to disclose the incident to anyone. On 9.10.2014, the complainant along with her parents and other family members had gone to the house of the petitioner to complain about his behavior. 3. So far as the allegations of making advances levelled in the F.I.R. are concerned, Mr. Bedi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has referred to contents of chatting to substantiate his argument that it was absolutely improbable for the petitioner to behave with indecency as the complainant most of the time remains accompanied by Gunman and driver of her father who happens to be a senior police officer in the Punjab Police. 4. He argued that the father of the petitioner who is a retired senior police officer from Himachal Pradesh had written a letter to the Home Secretary and Inspector General of Police, U.T., Chandigarh, that a false F.I.R. has been registered and that no jewellery was ever brought by the petitioner and that it is the petitioner who had got a solitaire ring made at the demand of the complainant. He had on 5.10.2014, given a cheque of ` 2 lacs drawn on self for her Dubai shopping and for invitation cards payment. The cheque had been encashed by the father of the complainant on 6.10.2014 at HDFC Bank. When the complainant had gone to the house of the petitioner on 7.10.2014, she was told that the petitioner was not going to marry her and she insisted to require the petitioner to keep the promise. The father of the petitioner had asked the complainant that he would talk to the petitioner. The complainant had been talking to the petitioner on phone repeatedly till 9.10.2014. The family members of the complainant had come to the house of the petitioner objecting to the reasons for break-up. Thereafter the mother and sister of the complainant had threatened to harm the petitioner and his family members. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered all the documents referred to by him. 6. The fact that the petitioner had developed close intimacy with the complainant is apparent from the documents available on the file. The ceremony of roka and courtship has been admitted. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered all the documents referred to by him. 6. The fact that the petitioner had developed close intimacy with the complainant is apparent from the documents available on the file. The ceremony of roka and courtship has been admitted. The petitioner having crossed the limits during period of intimacy prior to the marriage cannot be minutely adjudicated upon at this stage, but statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh on 28.10.2014. There does not appear to be any reason for doubting the statement of the complainant that the petitioner has indulged in acts of outraging her modesty to an extent that he made an attempt to rape her. No doubt the allegations of outraging the modesty of a woman is a very easy weapon to be used against anyone but to generalise that such allegations are incorrect in all cases will not be appropriate especially when an educated girl belonging to a respectable family levels such allegations against another person belonging to equally honourable and respectable family. 7. I have also considered the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the story of outraging the modesty in the house of petitioner is improper when the T.V. room is adjacent to the room of the parents of the petitioner. The letter Annexure P11 sent by the father of the petitioner giving the defence version cannot be considered, at this stage, to grant concession of pr-arrest bail to the petitioner. The improbability of the story of the complainant and the probable defence available to the petitioner cannot be appreciated while deciding the application for pre-arrest bail when there are serious allegations levelled regarding outraging the modesty, attempt of rape and misappropriation of gift articles at premarital stage. I have also gone through the police file which indicates that the investigating agency except recording the statement of the complainant has not taken any effective steps for fair investigation of the matter for the reasons best known to it. It cannot be opined whether the pace of the investigating agency could be attributed to the status of the family of the petitioner or it is on account of influence or partial attitude but the fact remains that the investigation is at initial stage. It cannot be opined whether the pace of the investigating agency could be attributed to the status of the family of the petitioner or it is on account of influence or partial attitude but the fact remains that the investigation is at initial stage. Grant of pre-arrest bail is certainly going to hamper the effective investigation. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner The petition is dismissed. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek concession of regular bail in accordance with law.