IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21788 of 2009 Date of decision : August 31, 2009 Makhan Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Makhan Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 86, dated 19.6.2009, under sections 406 and 498-A IPC, Police Station S.B.S. Nagar, District S.B.S. Nagar (Nawanshahr). Petitioner is husband of the complainant. The allegations are that marriage took place on 8.2.2009. The FIR was registered just four months after the marriage. The allegations are that petitioner not only misappropriated with the dowry articles of the complainant but also made demand of Rs 50 lacs for purchase of house at Chandigarh. He was even paid Rs 50,000/- but the demand of Rs 50 lacs persisted. The complainant was given merciless beatings. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the house has been purchased from Chandigarh Housing Board in August, 2008 i.e. six Criminal Misc. No. M-21788 of 2009 -2- months before the marriage. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to tell as to for how much amount the house was purchased and whether the entire sale price has been paid. Learned State counsel contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. Even Panchayats of two villages i.e. one from the complainant's village and the other from the petitioner's village was held in the Women Cell and after discussion, the Panchayats allegedly found fault with the petitioner and his family and asked them to take the complainant back to the matrimonial home and not to raise any demand and not to harass her. The allegation is that the petitioner and his family still stuck to the demand of Rs 50 lacs. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, I do not find it to be a fit case for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 31, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'