Criminal Misc. No. M-32825 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32825 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 7.12.2009 Manjit .. Petitioner. v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. N. K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 141 dated 1.4.2008, registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 406 and 120-B IPC, Police Station, Sadar Bhiwani. The petitioner is the husband of deceased-Sanjuwala. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. No. M-11655 of 2008 for grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by this court on 8.7.2009. While filing the earlier petition, though the FIR had been registered by that time, but the petitioner did not mention in the petition the factum thereof and it was only mentioned that anticipatory bail was being sought in complaint No. 40 dated 27.3.2008 –Rishal Singh v. Manjit and others, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 406, 120-B IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. Though on account of certain error, in the order instead of anticipatory bail, regular bail was mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case is in Army. He has never misused his position. His parents were arrested and have already been released on regular bail. He had, in fact, no role to play in the death of his wife. In case, opportunity is granted, he will join the investigation and place his version before the Investigating Officer. In fact, initially the matter was investigated by the police and it was not found worth registration of the FIR. Later on, on a complaint filed by the father of the deceased, the matter was referred by the Magistrate for registration of the FIR. There is substantial delay even in filing of the complaint after the death of the wife of the Criminal Misc. No. M-32825 of 2009 [2] petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. No. M-11655 of 2008, in which the factum of registration of FIR against the petitioner was not disclosed, though the FIR stood registered on 1.4.2008, whereas the petition was filed in this Court on 6.5.2008. Though there is inadvertent error in mentioning of regular bail in the earlier order passed by this Court rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on 8.7.2009, but still the petitioner kept quiet till such time the present petition was filed on 19.11.2009 seeking anticipatory bail. The arguments raised to claim the same do not carry any weight. The petitioner is an accused in a heinous crime. The argument that there is substantial delay in registration of the FIR or even filing of the complaint in the court has no meaning, considering the seriousness of offence where the death of the wife of the petitioner took place on 5.3.2008 within less than one year of marriage under unnatural circumstances, where she died of burn injuries and complaint in the court was filed on 27.3.2008. In spite of the fact that the FIR has been registered against the petitioner since 1.4.2008 and he has not been arrested till date, I do not find that the petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 7.12.2009 mk