IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-37077 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 06, 2011 Baljit Singh. …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Crl.Misc. No.727 of 2011 For the reasons stated in the Crl. Misc. application, application is allowed. Annexure P/4 is taken on record. Crl.Misc. No. M-37077 of 2010 This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 124, dated 25.09.2010, under Sections 498-A, 406, 109, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. The report lodged by the wife-complainant against the petitioner reads as under:- Crl.Misc. No.M-37077 of 2010 “…I am only daughter of my parents. My father has expired about 10 years back. There is 10 killas of land and other property in the name of my mother. I have got married to Baljit Singh s/o Buta Singh, resident of Naruana, District Bathinda, on 28.10.2007. I have one daughter aged 1-1/2 year old. My in-laws family and Baljit Singh harass and physically torture me. They demand dowry and threatened us to kill. Baljit Singh say that he wants to get the property of my mother in his name. My husband Baljit Singh is having a pistol. He threatens me and my mother with that pistol. My husband Baljit Singh and my in-laws family want to get the property by threatening me and my widow mother or either they will kill us. Feeling helpless we helpless ladies are living my maternal grand parents house, after leaving our house at Jodhpur Pakhar. Regarding this we have earlier made application to S.S.P. Bathinda, on 6.8.2010, regarding torture by Baljit Singh, but no satisfactory action has been taken…” On the report filed by the complainant, an enquiry was conducted by D.S.P., Maur and he has prima facie found that the complainant is pressurizing unnecessary to his wife and mother-in-law to transfer the entire land in the name of the accused-petitioner. Petitioner has not placed on record 2 Crl.Misc. No.M-37077 of 2010 any proof to prima facie prove that he has returned Istridhan to his wife. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. January 06, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3