Crl. Misc. No. M-5931 of 2011 (O&M) ******* Kuldeep vs. State of Haryana ******* Present : Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Man Mohan Sikka, DAG Haryana This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 14 dated 14.1.2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak. On 24.2.2011, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel states that the petitioner is ready to resolve whatever dispute which may exist between him and his wife and to salvage the marriage. On his oral request Sarita Devi w/o Kuldeep Singh, r/o H.No. 1179/34, Vijay Nagar, Bagh wali Gali, Rohtak is impleaded as respondent No. 2. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. Notice of motion. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG Haryana, at the asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to serve the newly added respondent No. 2 by way of dasti process. May do so. Dasti only. He also undertakes to supply two copies of the petition to the learned DAG during the course of the day. Adjourned to 29.3.2011. Let a draft of ` 50,000/- be prepared in the name of Crl. Misc. No. M-5931 of 2011 (O&M) 2 respondent No. 2 and brought on the next date of hearing to meet immediate expenses. In the meantime arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed. ” Thereafter on 29.3.2010, the following order was passed:- “As per the report, dasti notice issued to respondent No. 2 has not been received back served or otherwise. Counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to serve the said respondent by way of dasti process. Allowed. Let dasti notice be issued to respondent No. 2 for 5.4.2011. Counsel for the petitioner further states that draft of Rs. 50,000/- could not be produced but undertakes to produce the same before the next date of hearing. Interim order to continue.” Even today neither service has been effected nor petitioner has produced draft of ` 50,000/- as he has undertaken on the last date of hearing despite having been told by learned counsel for the petitioner on many occasions. Petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) 05.04.2011 JUDGE reena