IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-2072 of 2008 Date of decision:- 15.5.2008 Dharampal ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S. Teji, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL J. On 29.1.2008 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, husband was still ready and willing to live with his wife and there was no difference as such. Even a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights had already been filed. Counsel for the complainant who was present in Court, had put in appearance and submitted that even the complainant-wife was also ready and willing to live with petitioner. On 14.2.2008, the earlier statement made by the petitioner was reiterated. He further submitted that he will bring his wife and child from her parents home within three days and thereafter live together. However, till 5.5.2008 nothing materialized and the petitioner did not bring his wife and child from her parents home. On that date counsel for the petitioner was directed to ensure the presence of the petitioner on the next date of hearing i.e. 15.5.2008. Even today the petitioner is not present in person in spite of direction Criminal Misc. No. M-2072 of 2008 -2- by this Court. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner where he had apparently made a false statement before the Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 29.1.2008. I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. This petition is dismissed. May 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) ritu-II JUDGE