Crl. Misc. No. M-29332 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-29332 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 21, 2011 Sardul Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Sardul Singh has filed this petition for regular bail in case FIR No.8 dated 07.01.2001, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner is husband of the deceased. FIR is dated 07.01.2001 i.e. almost 11 years ago. The petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender, whereas his co-accused were tried and acquitted. It is case of dowry death. Crl. Misc. No. M-29332 of 2011 2 On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had gone abroad about four months before the death of the deceased and has thereafter returned to India only in May 2011 for the first time. However, today learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had left India on 09.11.2000 i.e. about two months before the occurrence and returned to India in March 2009, but surrendered to the police in May 2011 i.e. 02 years 02 months after his return to India. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that according to the prosecution version, the deceased had left the matrimonial home on the date of suicide itself, but it has been found that she was living in the parental home for seven months. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had left India about two months before the suicide, and therefore, he is not guilty of dowry death. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. The same have to be decided by the trial court after the parties lead their evidence. At this stage, suffice to mention that the petitioner is husband of the deceased. The petitioner, in spite of being aware of the case pending against him (because his family members were facing trial in the case), remained absconding from the process of law for more than ten years. He was declared Proclaimed Offender. Even after returning to India, he did not surrender to the process of law for 02 years and 02 months. In view of the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any Crl. Misc. No. M-29332 of 2011 3 opinion on merits of the case, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. Committing Magistrate/trial court to expedite the case. December 21, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE