Crl. Misc. No. M-30817 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30817 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 02, 2011 Mahinder .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate for the complainant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Mahinder has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.251 dated 29.09.2011, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 494 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jind. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner and his co- Crl. Misc. No. M-30817 of 2011 2 accused Bani Singh induced complainant Ajmer Singh for marriage with another co-accused Maina and accordingly, marriage was solemnized on 11.06.2011. However, on 11.07.2011, Bani Singh took away Maina from the house of the complainant on the pretext that her mother was ill. The accused also took away cash amount, ornaments, LPG cylinder and a gas stove from the house of the complainant. However, second marriage of Maina was solemnized with co-accused Ajit Singh on 03.08.2011. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is only maternal uncle of the second husband Ajit Singh, who along with Maina, has already been arrested and released on regular bail. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Randhir Singh, as well as learned counsel for the complainant contended that it was the petitioner along with Bani Singh, who induced the complainant to marry Maina and it was part of their conspiracy to rob the complainant of the ornaments and cash amount etc. It was contended that the petitioner is party to both the marriages. It is also submitted that recover of stolen property is yet to be effected. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Had the petitioner been party to second marriage only, the position might have been different. However, petitioner is said to be part of conspiracy, pursuant to which, the petitioner and Bani Singh got married Crl. Misc. No. M-30817 of 2011 3 Maina with complainant Ajmer Singh and just one month after the said marriage, Maina left the house of the complainant with cash and valuables etc. and then re-married with Ajit Singh after three weeks. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. November 02, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE