CRM No.M-18949 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-18949 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.8.2009 Raj Kumar ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the State/respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.59 dated 22.4.2009 under Sections 307, 452 IPC at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar. The aforesaid case has been registered on the complaint of Harpreet Kaur who has stated that she is 23 years of age. On 21.4.2009 when she was alone at home, the petitioner entered her house and forcibly put two tablets of Sulphos in her mouth saying that he will not allow her to marry any other boy. As a result of which her health deteriorated and her brother Amandeep Pal got her admitted in the Sacred Heart Hospital, Maqsoodan. Apprehending arrest in the aforesaid case, the petitioner had applied for bail before the Court below vide application No.250 of 2009 which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 6.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the CRM No.M-18949 of 2009 (O&M) -2- petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is alleged that in fact on 21.4.2009 when he was passing by the house of the complainant, her brother attacked him and forcibly took him to their home and not only they gave him beatings but also made him to consume Sulphos tablets and thereafter, he was thrown in the street in an unconscious condition. Counsel for the State has argued that in the FIR the date and time is also the same i.e. 21.4.2009 at 10 A.M. when the alleged occurrence took place inside the house of the complainant when the petitioner had forcibly put two tablets in the mouth of the complainant. Thus, it is submitted that there is a total restlessness in the society where a discontented person attempts to take the life of a girl on the pretext of one sided infatuation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that in such a case, relief of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to the petitioner. Hence, the present application is dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 7.8.2009 Judge Meenu