Criminal Misc.No.M-24446 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-24446 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 22.12.2011 Manoj Kumar ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN *** Present : Mr.S.K.Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Mann, A.A.G., Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr.Achin Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant. *** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J This is an application for pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.23 dated 15.07.2011, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 109 IPC, at Police Station Mehla Thana, District Bathinda. At the time of notice of motion, on the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant Chhinder Kaur was impleaded as respondent No.2. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioner had also contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to rehabilitate his wife Chhinder Kaur and had also submitted that “he is ready to return the entire dowry articles”. On that premise, the interim bail was granted to the petitioner. After appearance of respondent No.2 through her advocate, the matter was placed before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and the case was adjourned in the meantime. Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the Criminal Misc.No.M-24446 of 2011(O&M) 2 petitioner had not appeared on any hearing before the Mediator and ultimately the matter was placed before this Court for decision on merits. He has also submitted that the petitioner had been changing his advocate one after the other as the petition was initially filed by Sh.H.S.Rakhra, Advocate, thereafter Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate had appeared and now Sh.S.K.Bawa is prosecuting the bail application on behalf of the petitioner. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he would hand over gold ring and kada which is alleged to have been given at the time of marriage and on that basis, the interim order was allowed to be continued. Today learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that the petitioner is not coming forward to hand over gold ring and kada which is alleged to have been given at the time of marriage despite his repeated communication. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner is misusing the concession of bail by making a false statement before this Court that he is ready and willing to return the dowry articles. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not even offered to return the gold ring and kada which is alleged to have been given at the time of marriage. In these circumstances, the petitioner, in my view, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail as the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner is declined. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) December 22, 2011 JUDGE mamta