CRM.M- 14825 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM.M- 14825 of 2009 Decided on Oct 30,2009. Anil Kumar -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Varun Gupta,Advocate,for the petitioner Ms.Shalini Attri,AAG,, Haryana. Mr.Kuldeep Tewari,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.85 dated 03.4.2009, registered under Sections 498A,406, 323,506 IPC, at Police Station Sector Pundri, District Kaithal. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Babita, wife of the petitioner in which she has alleged that not only the petitioner but other accused also have usurped her Istridhan, and she has been taunted, harassed and beaten by the petitioner while demanding dowry as they were expecting Maruti Esteem Car but could get only Rs. 2 lacs for purchasing Maruti 800. The petitioner had been demanding money from her father for the purpose of purchasing a flat CRM.M- 14825 of 2009 2 in Chandigarh. It is alleged that the father of the complainant had given Rs.One lac. to her for that purpose. It is further alleged that since she was not in a position to give remaining amount, she was mercilessly beaten and confined in a closed room for two days without food and water. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations are false and motivated in order to implicate the petitioner who is working as Auditor in the Food and Supply Department, Haryana. It is further submitted that the complainant does not want to live with the petitioner at Kurukshetra and wanted to stay at Chandigarh. Therefore, due to temperamental differences, the present FIR has been registered. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner has given his address in the office record as resident of House No.767,Sector 9, Panchkula where he could keep the complainant. He further submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner which constitute the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and the recovery of dowry article is still to be effected. During the pendency of the bail application, the petitioner was granted interim bail and efforts were made for a amicable reunion of the couple. The complainant/wife had shown her willingness to resume matrimonial home but the petitioner/husband showed his disinclination. The parties were also sent to Mediation Centre of this Court, but despite best efforts of the Mediator, they could not reach to a settlement. CRM.M- 14825 of 2009 3 As the allegations are specific and recovery is yet to be effected, I do not find any exceptional circumstances in order to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this bail petition is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case. Oct 30,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge