Crl.M.No.M-8686 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-8686 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 13, 2010 Dinesh Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ravi K.Mattoo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG,Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.140, dated 9.9.2009, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Julkan, Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. As per allegations in the FIR, which was registered on the basis of application dated 17.6.2009 given by the complainant before the Senior Superintendent of Police, marriage of petitioner with complainant was solemnised on 9.7.2000. There are allegations of demand of dowry and harassment on account of dowry. There are specific allegations that petitioner developed illicit relations with his own Bhabhi and on that count he used to harass the complainant. There are further allegations that he even used to give his salary to his Bhabhi. Allegations are also that petitioner alongwith Sameer Kumar sold their house and purchased a new house in the name of his Bhabhi only and when she raised objections, she was given beatings and threat was raised to kill her. It has also been contended by learned State counsel, on Crl.M.No.M-8686 of 2010 (O&M) -2- instructions from Sohan Singh, H.C., that though brother of present petitioner was arrested, however, all the dowry articles have not been recovered and gold ornaments are also yet to be recovered. The present FIR was lodged after getting the matter enquired from Women Cell by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Complainant has been forced to live separate from the petitioner alongwith a minor daughter and for the last 1-1/2 years she alongwith minor daughter is living separate from the petitioner. Hence, in view of these facts it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, who is the main accused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Dinesh Kumar, for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed. 13.5.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge