Crl. Misc. No. M-31108 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-31108 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 03, 2011 Manoj .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. J. S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for the complainant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Manoj has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.355 dated 30.08.2011, under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Camp Palwal, District Faridabad. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner is husband of the complainant. There are serious Crl. Misc. No. M-31108 of 2011 2 allegations against the petitioner and co-accused. Earlier in the year 2007, compromise was effected between the parties, but again the petitioner and his co-accused allegedly treated the complainant with cruelty and misappropriated her dowry articles. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is ready to rehabilitate the complainant in the matrimonial home. However, the complainant, who is present in person along with her counsel, stated that she has no hope of proper rehabilitation in the matrimonial home in view of past conduct of the petitioner and his co-accused. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner himself purchased household articles and gold ornaments after previous settlement in the year 2007. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Dharminder Singh, contended that dowry articles, particularly ornaments, are yet to be recovered. Attempt was made to recover the same at the parental home of petitioner in Agra, but the cupboards were found locked. Petitioner is husband of the complainant. There are serious allegations against him. Dowry articles are also yet to be recovered. Consequently, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. It may be added that since the FIR is result of matrimonial dispute, efforts were made to counsel the complainant for some amicable Crl. Misc. No. M-31108 of 2011 3 settlement either for re-uniting the parties or for un-tying the knot by amicable settlement, but the complainant submitted that in view of past conduct of the petitioner, she cannot live in the company of the petitioner. Dismissed, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case. November 03, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE