CRM No. M-13883 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-13883 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.05.2009 Jatinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of any case being registered against him at the instance of respondent No.3, under Sections 376, 420, 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner was earlier married to Paramjit Kaur. However, relations of Paramjit Kaur with the petitioner became strained and divorce petition was filed in the Court of District Judge, Amritsar on 1st June, 2007. An ex-parte decree of divorce was granted in favour of the petitioner on 11th June, 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner married Mamta Kumari, respondent No.3 herein. According to the petitioner, said Mamta Kumari insisted that the petitioner should live separately from his parents. Otherwise also, her behaviour became very rude. She also submitted a complaint against the petitioner at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested, in case an FIR is CRM No. M-13883 of 2009 2 registered against him on the complaint of respondent No.3. He, therefore, may be granted the concession of anticipatory bail; alternatively ten days advance notice, in case he is required pursuant to any FIR. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions at Amritsar for similar relief. However, the same was declined on the ground that no FIR had been registered against the petitioner and thus his prayer for anticipatory bail was misconceived. There can be no doubt about the fact that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition for anticipatory/blanket bail merely on the basis of apprehension that a case may be registered against him at the behest of respondent No.3 and he may be arrested pursuant to the same. Needless to say that mere apprehension or fear in the mind of the petitioner, cannot entitle him to seek the concession of anticipatory bail. Besides, the prayer made in the present petition is more in nature of blanket bail which is quite untenable. The facts of the case do not reveal any situation which would warrant an order of such extra- ordinary nature. I thus find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE May 20, 2009 'rajpal'