High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maninder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 June, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maninder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 June, 2009
Criminal Misc. No. M-15193 of 2009                                  1




     In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                  Criminal Misc. No. M-15193 of 2009

                      Date of Decision: 1.6.2009


Maninder Pal Singh
                                                            ...Petitioner
                                Versus
State of Punjab
                                                         ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

         Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate
         General, Punjab, for the State.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 36 dated

20.3.2009 registered at Police Station Dhariwal, Gurdaspur, under

Sections 406, & 498-A IPC..

Petitioner Maninder Pal Singh, is a husband of complainant

Veena Kumari. FIR has been lodged at the instance of Veena Kumari

and she has made specific allegations against the petitioner that he has

demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and due to this, differences arose between

them and complainant was maltreated.

In the present case, marriage was solemnized on 10.12.2005.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that difference of opinion due
Criminal Misc. No. M-15193 of 2009 2

to maladjustment has occurred. The allegation of demand of dowry has

been coined. It is further submitted that the petitioner wanted to keep

and rehabilitate his aggrieved wife in the matrimonial home and petition

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal

rights, filed by the petitioner is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Ludhiana.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions

raised by counsel for the petitioner.

Though it seem to be a case of matrimonial maladjustment

but contention of counsel for the State that dowry articles are to be

recovered, is also to be given due credence. Hence, there is no merit in

the present petition, and the same is dismissed.

However, it is ordered that in case petitioner surrender before

the trial Court on or before 10.6.2009, his regular bail application shall

be decided within two days.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
June 1, 2009
“DK”