Crl. Misc. No .M-32844 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No .M-32844 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Rakesh Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for complainant-respondent No.2. *** L.N. MITTAL, J. (Oral). Rakesh Kumar accused has filed this petition for pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.56 dated 06.05.2011 under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 IPC registered at Police Station Killa Lal Singh, District Batala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner is the husband of the complainant. There are allegations that the petitioner alongwith his parents made demand of dowry and gave beatings to the complainant and ultimately turned her out of her matrimonial home and misappropriated her dowry articles. Petitioner's father has died allegedly at the hands of the complainant party and separate FIR Annexure P-2 has been registered. Learned State counsel has stated that even in the instant petition, Crl. Misc. No .M-32844 of 2011 -2- the petitioner has alleged that cancellation report is being submitted in the said FIR (Annexure P-2), allegedly due to political pressure. Petitioner's mother i.e. mother-in-law has already been granted concession of anticipatory bail and some dowry articles were recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail, submitting that the marriage took place seven years before lodging of the FIR and the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Baljinder Singh contended that gold ornaments are yet to be recovered. It is petitioner's own case that the complainant was residing with him at his place of posting. For this reason and also being the husband of the complainant, petitioner is main culprit. His mother has already been granted anticipatory bail. Gold ornaments are allegedly to be recovered from the petitioner. Keeping in view all the circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the petitioner in my opinion does not deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. December 19, 2011 (L.N. MITTAL) harjeet JUDGE