IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 22426 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 28, 2012. Vikramjit Singh and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.35 dated 25.12.2009, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at police station Pojewal, District SBS Nagar (Nawanshahr). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar dismissing anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioners. CRM No.M-22426 of 2010 Brief allegations against the petitioners-accused are that, marriage of complainant was performed with petitioner no.1 on 13.12.2006. Petitioner no.1 is employed in the Indian Army. However, petitioners and other family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of the complainant in the marriage. There are allegations that even petitioner no.1 used to harass her and used to give her beatings on account of dowry. Complainant gave birth to a female child, who was about nine months old at the time of filing of this complaint and now she is four years of age. All the expenses of the birth of the child were also borne by the parents of the complainant. Panchayat was convened in which petitioner felt sorry and however, after some time they started harassing her. There are allegations of mental as well as physical harassment. Petitioner no.1 never talked to complainant nor disclosed his place of posting. Complainant was also separated from the joint family house without her consent. She was not paid anything for her maintenance as well as maintenance of minor child. On 31.08.2009 again Panchayat was convened and some more time was sought to reconcile the differences but to no effect. It may be mentioned here that efforts were made by this Court to get the matter reconciled and the parties were also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for amicable settlement but in vain. Even today before this Court complainant alongwith her minor daughter is present. Though she alongwith minor child is ready to go to the matrimonial home with petitioner no.1, who is also present in the Court and however, petitioner -2- CRM No.M-22426 of 2010 no.1 is adamant and not ready to keep complainant in the matrimonial home. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for respondent-State as well as learned counsel for complainant that even petitioner no.1 did not disclose about the factum of his marriage and even birth of the child to Army authorities and the same was disclosed later on when this fact was brought to the notice of the Court during pendency of this petition. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra- ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners- accused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Vikramjit Singh and Bhajno Devi is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order dated 05.08.2010 already granted in favour of petitioners stands vacated. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 28, 2012. JUDGE ‘om’ -3-