Crl. Misc. No. M-26321 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-26321 of 2009 Date of Decision : October 23, 2009 Vikram Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Vikram Kumar has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.158 dated 14.08.2009, under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Petitioner is husband of the complainant Gursharan Kaur. The allegations are that the petitioner and his parents had been harassing the complainant for more dowry. Her dowry articles have also been misappropriated by them. Crl. Misc. No. M-26321 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the complainant's father had earlier lodged an FIR at Panchkula, in which the petitioner and his parents were granted anticipatory bail vide order Annexure P-2 by Sessions Judge, Panchkula and almost four months thereafter, the instant FIR has been lodged. However, perusal of order Annexure P-2 reveals that FIR at Panchkula was lodged by father of Gursharan Kaur – complainant herein and the said FIR related to a particular incident of beating of Gursharan Kaur by the petitioner and his parents, which took place on 15.04.2009. The said FIR was under Section 323 IPC, in addition to offence under Section 506 IPC. However, the instant FIR is regarding misappropriation of dowry articles and harassment of the complainant in the matrimonial home. Petitioner's parents have already been allowed anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in the instant FIR. Obviously, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of dowry articles and for investigation of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contended that jewellery of the complainant Gursharan Kaur was handed over to her on 06.06.2005 vide receipt Annexure P-1 and the locker was finally operated upon by the complainant herself as per bank's letter Annexure P-3. However, it would not entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail because much water flowed in the Ganges during the intervening period of four years. Receipt Annexure P-1 would rather show that there was trouble in the marital life of the complainant even since prior to the year 2005. Keeping in view the aforesaid, but without meaning to comment anything on merits, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. October 23, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE