CRM-M34591 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 26.11.2009. Sukhminder Singh @ Laddi @ Sukhwinder Singh --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sanjiv Pandey,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Abhishek Chautala,AAG,Punjab, for the State Mr.V.K.Sandhir,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:(Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.'), for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.263 dated 23.10.2008 registered under Sections 406, 498- A IPC at Police Station, Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The aforesaid FIR has been registered at the instance of Harbans Kaur, wife of the petitioner, who has categorically alleged that the petitioner had been subjecting her to cruelty while demanding dowry. She has alleged that on 01.7.2008, at about 5.p.m, the petitioner had badly beaten her and dragged her from hair in the Court yard. She was allegedly told that if the demanded money is not brought by her from her parents, then she will be treated like this and after mercilessly beating, she was locked in a room. It is also alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry. CRM-M34591 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had approached the Court below for anticipatory bail which had been dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge Ludhiana, vide his order dated 25.12.2008, on the ground that there are specific allegations of beating of the complainant by the petitioner and usurption of her istridhan. In this case, at the time of notice of motion, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that he was suffering from Hepatitis C because of which the complainant had deserted him. During the course of hearing, efforts were made by this Court for reconciliation between the husband and wife. On 16.4.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is ready to rehabilitate the complainant which was readily accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, therefore, both the parties were directed to be present in Court on 17.7.2009. The complainant came present on that date, but the petitioner did not appear and the case was then adjourned to 29.7.2009 subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. On 29.7.2009, the cost was paid by the petitioner. Both the parties agreed to live together. The petitioner had offered to take his wife (complainant) straightway from the Court and the case was then adjourned to 24.9.2009. On 24.9.2009, the respondent informed that though she was taken to the matrimonial home by the petitioner but on the next day, she was again turned out because she was not accepted by the petitioner as well as his family members. It appears that the petitioner has become incorrigible . There are specific allegations of subjecting the complainant with CRM-M34591 of 2008 (O&M) 3 cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. Moreover, the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected. Therefore, I do not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail petition is hereby dismissed. 26.11 2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge