Crl.M.No.M-13959 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-13959 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 2, 2010 Sunil Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr.C.S.Bakshi, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.71, dated 9.4.2009, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana City. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give all the dowry articles including golden ornaments and however, the same are not being accepted by the complainant. However, it has been stated by learned State counsel that golden ornaments weighing 15 tolas are yet to be recovered, as per order of this Court dated 24.9.2009. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that though interim bail was granted to the petitioner, however, he has not cooperated and all the dowry articles including golden ornaments are yet not recovered. It has also been contended that petitioner being husband committed serious acts of cruelty upon complainant and that Crl.M.No.M-13959 of 2009 (O&M) -2- a false allegation was levelled that the complainant was having illicit relations with some other boy and that she was pregnant at the time of the marriage and on that basis petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the marriage was also filed by the petitioner-husband, whereas the child was born after more than nine months of the marriage. The plea taken by the present petitioner in that petition is that sometime after the marriage the petitioner had come to know that Neelam Rani is pregnant and that the fact came to his knowledge that she was pregnant even before the marriage with the petitioner and that the said fact was concealed from the petitioner by Neelam Rani and her parents and when complainant was asked to go for medical checkup at Chandigarh, she flately refused and hence, petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed. However, admittedly, the child was born to Neelam Rani after more than nine months of the marriage with the petitioner, i.e., on 5.2.2009, whereas the marriage was solemnised on 19.4.2008. Hence, in the light of these types of false allegations and acts of cruelty being committed upon the complainant by the petitioner, he is not entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Sunil Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit and interim order already granted in his favour is vacated. 2.7.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge