Crl. Misc. No. M-3967 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3967 of 2011 Date of Decision : 15th December, 2011 Satpal Bala .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. B. S. Bali, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Satpal Bala has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.6 dated 28.01.2011 under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC registered at Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner is husband of respondent No.2-complainant. The allegations are usual that he harassed the complainant for more dowry and has also misappropriated her dowry articles. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.2 while leaving the matrimonial home, had taken away all her Crl. Misc. No. M-3967 of 2011 -2- articles and whatever domestic articles remained in the matrimonial home, have since been recovered by the police in this case. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant contended that jewellery articles as well as passport, educational certificates etc. of the complainant remain to be recovered from the petitioner. It may be mentioned that the case was also referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre functioning in this Court, but the matter could not be amicably settled. Counsel for respondent No.2 stated that respondent No.2- complainant wants to be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home but counsel for the petitioner stated that rehabilitation of the complainant is not possible in the matrimonial home in view of her past conduct and petitioner has already filed divorce petition against the complainant. Petitioner is the only accused in the case because other family members of the petitioner, although named in the FIR, have been found innocent. Petitioner is husband of the complainant and is primarily responsible for her well being. It is the petitioner who has allegedly kept the jewellery articles as well as documents of the complainant. Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. 15th December, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) 'raj' JUDGE