CRM No.M-30360 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-30360 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.05.2011 Harcharanjit Singh .. Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr.U.S. Dhaliwal, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr.L.S. Mann, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This is a petition for anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.226 dated 21.09.2010 registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar. During the hearing of this petition, on the request of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Mediation so that the marriage could be salvaged. Those attempts failed. On 18.04.2011, the following order was passed:- “Attempts at mediation have failed. However, today with the intervention of learned counsel, a tentative agreement has been arrived at that this unfortunate relationship should be terminated. Adjourned to 27.04.2011. Let parties be present on the next date of hearing. The petitioner shall bring a draft of CRM No.M-30360 of 2010 ::2:: Rs.10,000/- in favour of respondent No.2 on the date fixed”. Thereafter on 27.04.2011, the following order was passed:- “Parties are present in person. A sum of Rs.5,000/- has been given to respondent No.2 by the petitioner. Adjourned to 12.05.2011. Interim order to continue, meanwhile”. On 12.05.2011, the matter come up and it was disclosed that the parties have two children i.e. a boy aged 5 years and a girl aged 1½ years old. The parties were present. The petitioner even on that date asserted before me that he was wanting to take the respondent No.2 back but the respondent No.2 expressed apprehension that earlier also, the petitioner had treated her with extreme cruelty and had, in fact, not only thrown her out of the house and had also separated her from her two children, a son aged 5 years old and a daughter 1½ years old. I put it to the petitioner if to show his bona fides he was ready to give the custody of 1 ½ years old daughter and also to allow his 5 years old son at least visit the mother (respondent No.2) during the vacations. The petitioner sought a short adjournment to consider this. Today, the petitioner had not appeared. His counsel has made a request that the petitioner could not get leave. I proposed to adjourn the matter to 27.05.2011. But, learned counsel for the petitioner states that it would not be possible for the petitioner to come before 05.06.2011. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the petitioner wants to avoid attending the Court because of the observations made on the last date of hearing and in fact, his repeated assertions that he wanted to mend the relationship and salvage the CRM No.M-30360 of 2010 ::3:: marriage were false and only for the purpose of securing the bail. I find considerable weight in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The absence of the petitioner and the request to adjourn the matter beyond 05.06.2011 i.e. after the vacations start is also an attempt to avoid even allowing the mother to spend one month with the minor child. In the circumstances, this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been making false statements before this Court in order to prolong the interim order in his favour. On the one hand, the petitioner has repeatedly asserted that he wants his marriage should be put back on the right track and he wants his wife to stay with him. On the other hand, he (petitioner) wants to deprive her even of the custody of 1½ year old a girl-child and visitation of her 5 years old son. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from H.C. Sarabjit Singh, has also argued that the recoveries have not yet been made in this case. In these circumstances, arguments on the merits of the case pale into insignificance and the conduct of the petitioner before this Court itself disentitles him from the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Even while dismissing this petition, this Court cannot be oblivious to the plight of the two children. The Court directs that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the children should also be immediately taken into the custody and handed over to the mother forthwith so that they are not rendered without any parental care. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 19, 2011 sukhpreet