SANJAY MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :-

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been lodged at the behest of first wife of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the marriage of the petitioner with the first wife was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 4th September, 1999. The other allegation in the FIR is that he contracted marriage with the complainant in the present case on 25th April, 1999. LEARNED counsel submits that this allegation is false on face of it because on that day the petitioner and his family members were attending the ring ceremony of a cousin of the petitioner. He further submits that the FIR has been lodged on 10th June, 2000 when the wife is alleged to have been expelled from the matrimonial home on 26th August, 1999. He further submits that the parents of the petitioner who were also named in the FIR have already been granted anticipatory bail. He further submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, he should also be directed to be released on anticipatory bail. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the wife in fact has remarried in October, 1999. All these proceedins according to the learned counsel have been initiated as one DSP is related to the family of the first wife. Prima facie, I am not satisfied that the family of the present complainant would be instigated by the family of the first wife. No material has been placed on record to show as to what is the close relationship between the complainant and the family of the first wife. In any event, all the submissions which have been made in this petition, can be made in a petition for regular bail before the trial Court. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.