CRM-M-22286 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-22286 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.08.2011 Harpinder Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) CRM No.38981 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-22286 of 2011 This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.45 dated 05.05.2011 under Sections 420, 376, 494, 495, 506, 406, 341 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the complainant while doing the computer course came in contact with Harvinder Singh, who solemnized marriage with her on 27.11.2008 in a simple ceremony of Chunni and Choora. However, after consummation of marriage she came to know that her husband was already married to one Lakhvir Kaur. The allegation is that she was asked to marry the petitioner on the pretext that he would take her to Australia and there her husband (Harvinder Singh), who is already married, would live with her as husband after divorcing Lakhvir Kaur. It is further alleged that her husband left for Australia and she was kept hungry even during her pregnancy and all the accused (including the petitioner) tried to kill her by giving severe beatings including kicks on her abdomen. CRM-M-22286 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not consummated marriage with the complainant. The only allegation against him is that he would have taken her to Australia as his wife where his elder brother, who is the actual husband of the complainant, would divorce his other wife and live with her as her husband. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record from which I have found that earlier the mother of the petitioner had also applied for pre-arrest bail vide CRM-M-18044 of 2011 titled as Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab” which has also been dismissed on 13.7.2011. The role attributed to the petitioner is not less heinous and for that matter he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 02, 2011 JUDGE Vivek