In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 12903 of 2009 Decided on December 10,2009. Raj Kumar @ Sonu -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.A.S.Sullar,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG, Haryana. Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary,Advocate,for respondent No.2/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.79 dated 19.3.2009 registered under Sections 406/498- A,323,506/34 IPC at Police Station, Ambala Cantt. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on an application moved by the complainant (wife of the petitioner) under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. in which she had made specific allegations of beating by the petitioner for the demand of dowry. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had approached the Court below for anticipatory bail which had been dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide his order dated 09.4.2009. In this case, while issuing notice of motion, interim bail was granted to the petitioner. CRM-M 12903 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has joined the investigation and recovery has been effected, therefore, prayer was made for confirmation of interim order of bail. During the pendency of the case, both the husband and wife i.e. the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2. were called by this Court to find out as to whether there could be any chance of compromise between the parties. Reconciliation efforts were made, but could not succeed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR is the counter blast to the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that though the petitioner has joined the investigation, but the dowry articles are yet to be recovered. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence this bail petition is hereby dismissed. December 10,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge