IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-15591 of 2008 Date of decision : August 17, 2009 Jatinder Singh and others ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with Mr. JS Brar, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Jatinder Singh and his parents have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 87 dated 12.6.2008, under sections 498-A, 406, 506 IC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Act, Police Station Phase-8, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Marriage of petitioner no. 1 with complainant was solemnized on 5.11.2006. According to the FIR, trouble started for the complainant some time after the marriage when all the petitioners started demanding car and other articles in dowry. The petitioners also did not spend anything on treatment during her pregnancy or delivery of the female child. The Criminal Misc. No. M-15591 of 2008 -2- complainant was allegedly forced to leave the matrimonial home along with newly born child. Her gold and Istridhan was also not returned. She was not even allowed to take clothes of daily wear. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioner no. 2 had moved application dated 5.4.2008, Annexure P/1 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali apprehending implication in some case by the complainant. However, this application only show the smartness of the petitioners because in view of marital discord, the petitioners apprehended that some case would be lodged by the complainant. Moving the application is of no help to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners next vehemently contended that the petitioners even moved application for seeking anticipatory bail which was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 13.5.2008, Annexure P/2. It shows that the said application was moved on 21.4.2008. It was also contended that petitioner no. 1 also filed petition dated 5.5.2008, Annexure P/3, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and only after service of notice of the said petition, the instant FIR was lodged. However, these contentions are factually untenable because learned State counsel contended that the complainant had made application to the police on 17.4.2008 for lodging FIR but the actual FIR was registered on 12.6.2008 after inquiry. It is, thus, apparent that anticipatory bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali which was disposed of vide Annexure P/2 as well as petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Annexure P/3 by petitioner no. 1 were filed after the complainant had already moved application before the police authorities for registration of FIR. Criminal Misc. No. M-15591 of 2008 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that there is growing tendency for implicating the husband and all family members in such cases. Reliance has been placed on Shekhar Pandey and others versus State, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal), 45 and Som Mittal versus Govt. of Karnataka, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 880. However, each case has to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to medical bills and photographs showing that the petitioners were present in the hospital and also paid hospital bills. However, at this stage the same does not entitle the petitioners to concession of anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel states that dowry articles are yet to be recovered. In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 17, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'