IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc. Petition No.M-16171 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.9.2009 Ajay Kumar. ....... Petitioner through Shri Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and another. ....... Respondent no.1 through Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. Respondent no.2 through Shri Maharaj Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, `the Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide F.I.R.No.260 dated 17.4.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 at Police Station, City Karnal. The petitioner is facing the allegations under the aforementioned sections on the basis of a complaint made by his wife – respondent no.2. Crl.Misc. Petition No. M-16171 of 2009 -2- .... On 10.6.2009 when the matter came up for consideration before this Court, the parties were directed to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Centre as there appeared to be some chances of settlement. Simultaneously, interim protection was granted to the petitioner. The efforts of the Mediator, however, could not bring about any result and consequently, this Court is now left with no option but to examine the case on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the petitioner has since joined the investigation and he had handed over the dowry articles to the investigating officer. Learned counsel for the state, on the other hand, has stated that some articles were given by the petitioner, but the same were not collected by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has, however, submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was granted interim protection on 10.6.2009 pursuant to which he has joined the investigation and has also delivered some dowry articles to the police and also the fact that no grievance has been made by the learned counsel for the State regarding his non-cooperation with the investigation and also noticing the fact that the dispute essential arises from a marital discord, I deem it proper Crl.Misc. Petition No. M-16171 of 2009 -3- .... to make the directions dated 10.6.2009 absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to comply with the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petition is allowed & disposed of in the above terms. September 10,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge