204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4047 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : November 17, 2017
Kulwinder Singh …..Petitioner
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 51 dated 01.10.2016 under Section 498A IPC
registered at Police Station Women, District Bathinda.
While issuing notice of motion, in this case, contentions noted
on behalf of the petitioner read as under:-
” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter
can be amicably resolved as the petitioner is ready to live with
his wife. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is serving the
Indian Armed Forces, can even seek his transfer to a family
station where both can live together.”
Respondent No. 2/complainant – the petitioner’s wife came
present before this Court on 05.04.2017 and submitted that she is ready and
willing to cohabit with the petitioner. It was submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that he would seek leave and bring back his wife to the
matrimonial home. The matter was placed before the Mediation and
1 of 3
22-11-2017 23:23:59 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4047 of 2017 (OM) -2-
Conciliation Centre of this Court to work out the final details. However, the
petitioner did not come present except on one occasion. As per report dated
19.07.2017 by the Mediator, it is informed that when the petitioner was
contacted telephonically, he informed that he could not come present and
would appear only when the matter is fixed before the Court. The petitioner
appeared before this Court on 29.08.2017 and stated that while serving the
Indian Armed Forces, he met with an accident and his spine was injured in
the accident. He was admitted at the Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir,
therefore, could not come present for mediation. He was to be operated
upon in the near future. The petitioner again expressed his readiness and
willingness to cohabit with respondent No. 2. The matter was adjourned to
12.10.2017 and thereafter to 13.11.2017 when the following order was
” The petitioner as well as respondent no.2 duly identified by
their counsel are present in Court. Petitioner had come present
before this Court on 29.08.2017 and had submitted that he was
involved in an accident and he suffered a spine injury. He was to
be operated upon. The petitioner expressed his readiness and
willingness to cohabit with respondent no.2 thereafter. The matter
was accordingly adjourned.
Today, the petitioner, present in Court, states that he is not
ready and willing to cohabit with his wife-respondent no.2 in any
situation. No explanation is forthcoming for this volte face or the
reason for filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 in case the petitioner did not wish to reside with his
wife. Respondent no.2 has nevertheless expressed her willingness
to resume matrimonial ties with the petitioner. It appears that the
petitioner made an incorrect statement before this Court on
29.08.2017 only with a view to further enjoy the interim order
granted by this Court.
2 of 3
22-11-2017 23:24:01 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4047 of 2017 (OM) -3-
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage seeks a
On request, adjourned to 17.11.2017. “
The position is no different today, therefore, keeping in view
the conduct of the petitioner, no ground whatsoever is made out to afford
the concession of anticipatory bail to him.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
November 17, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
22-11-2017 23:24:01 :::