CRM.M-26224 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM.M-26224 of 2009 Decided on Oct 20,2009. Vijay Kumar -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Vikas Bahl,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.R.S.Rawat,A.AG,Punjab. Mr.Sunil Chadha,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.201 dated 24.6.2009, registered under Sections 498,498- A, 406, 506, 323,120-B IPC (subsequently added Section 307 IPC) at Police Station, Jhodhewal, District Ludhiana. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of wife of the petitioner, namely, Sukhwinder Kaur, who has levelled allegations against the petitioner of subjecting her to cruelty and harassment while demanding dowry. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 18.8.2009. At the time of preliminary hearing of the bail application, CRM.M-26224 of 2009 2 learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is ready to rehabilitate the complainant, therefore, on his oral request, complainant Sukhwinder Kaur was impleaded as respondent No.2 in this petition and both, the petitioner and respondent No.2 Sukhwinder Kaur, were directed to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing. However, on the next date, when the complainant/respondent No.2. had appeared, the petitioner refused to rehabilitate her. Hence, the case was adjourned for hearing on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is similarly situated with other co-accused who have already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M 19560 of 2009 and CRM- M 24043 of 2009. It is also submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are concocted and motivated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the petitioner cannot take the advantage of the orders passed in the cases of other co-accused because there are specific allegations against the petitioner, which constitute the offence in which the FIR has been registered. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order passed in CRM-M 19560 of 2009 is in respect of Jeth and Jethani of the complainant who had submitted that they are residing separately at village Ladhewali, District Jalandhar whereas the complainant is residing in Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana while in CRM-M 24043 of 2009, the petitioners were Uncle (Phufar), Aunt (Bua) and their daughter, who are living separately from the petitioner and the complainant. Moreover, there is no other CRM.M-26224 of 2009 3 extraordinary circumstance which entitles the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail as allegations against him are specific . In view of the above, the present bail application 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 20 ,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge