Criminal Misc.-M No. 20766 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 20766 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.9.2011 Jitender .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. M. S. Tewatia, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who is in custody since 21.5.2011. The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are that he along with his parents and sisters had tried to set on fire the complainant. However, she was saved. The incident is stated to be of 14.2.2011. The complainant got herself medically examined on 18.2.2011 and the FIR was registered on 9.3.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who is husband of the complainant, submitted that because of matrimonial dispute, the complainant had got one FIR registered against the petitioner and his family members on 21.6.2010 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC. The allegations in the FIR are totally false as there is no reason that the complainant will live in the house of the petitioner after the matrimonial dispute between the parties. The delay in lodging the FIR is also evident of this fact. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that dispute between the parties was settled in the Criminal Misc.-M No. 20766 of 2011 [2] panchayat many times. Father of the petitioner had transferred two acres of land in favour of two sons born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the complainant. It is as per the settlement before the panchayat that the complainant was living in the same house. Medico-legal examination of the complainant was conducted on 18.2.2011, in which pain and tenderness was found. The FIR was registered on 9.3.2011 after the brother of the complainant came. Prior to that, efforts were being made for settlement of the dispute. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is delay of more than one month in registration of the FIR; even as per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was not put on fire and it is only said that kerosene oil was put on her and the petitioner tried to lit the fire, however, before that she was saved by neighbours, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves concession of bail pending trial. He is directed to be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Palwal. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.9.2011 mk