CRM-M Nos.12493 & 6586 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.06.2011 1) CRM-M No.12493 of 2011 (O&M) Lal Chand ……Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ……Respondent 2) CRM-M No.6586 of 2011 (O&M) Soma Rani and another ……Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, D.A.G., Punjab. Complainant present in person. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CRM-M Nos.12493 & 6586 of 2011 (O&M) -2- This order shall dispose of CRM-M Nos.12493 & 6586 of 2011 as both have arisen out of the same occurrence. For the sake of convenience the facts are being extracted from CRM-M No.12493 of 2011. This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.04 dated 11.01.2011 registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural. On 03.03.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners also undertakes to produce the son of the petitioners in Court. He also undertakes to get prepared a draft of `30,000/- in favour of respondent No.2 which shall be handed over to her along with the dasti summons. Registry is directed to issue summons only after the original draft is produced before it. As directed a draft of `20,000/- and `10,000/- in cash has been given by the petitioners to the complainant. Even today the petitioner has made the statement that he is willing to take his wife back but the complainant who is present in person states that at present she can not forget the cruelty inflicted by him on her as also in fact the petitioner had snatched the infant child from her when she was thrown out of the house and she has made what seems to this Court to be a fair offer that in the first instance the petitioner should handover the child to the complainant to show his bonafide that he is CRM-M Nos.12493 & 6586 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ready to salvage his relationship and thereafter she would consider to withdraw this case and resume rehabilitation. I put it to the petitioner that he should handover the child to the mother since even otherwise an infant is best left to be brought up by mother and that I would adjourn the matter and thereafter on the adjourned date even the Court would try to persuade the complainant to resume rehabilitation. However, despite the fact that his Counsel also advocated this course of action the petitioner has adamantly refused to handover the child even for a short period. This reveals to the Court that his earlier statements that he was wanting to salvage his relationship with his wife were self serving false statements. This conduct disentitles the petitioner from the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail and thus this Court is reluctantly constrained to dismiss these petitions. In the circumstances, even while dismissing these petitions this Court cannot be oblivious to the plight of the infant child and it is therefore directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners the custody of the child should also be taken by the police and immediately be handed over to the complainant-mother so that the child is not deprived of parental care. ( AJAY TEWARI ) June 02, 2011 JUDGE ashish