AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Ajmer Singh.

(2.) NOTICE was issued to the Advocate -General, Punjab, for 6.2.1992 on which date, Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Deputy Advocate -General, Punjab appeared on behalf of the State and the case was adjourned to February 12, 1992. Then the, case came up for hearing on 13.2.1992, when again Mr. Sharma prayed for two weeks time to seek instructions and accordingly the case was adjourned to 27.2.1992. In the meantime, it was ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - with one surety in the like amount. On 27.2.1992, Mr. Sharma again prayed for more time. The case was adjourned to 17.3.1992. Interim order passed on 13.2.1992 was allowed to continue. The case was adjourned from time to time. Many adjournments were sought to rile affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police rebutting the allegations made in the petition. Till today, no reply has been filed.

(3.) THE petitioner has stated in the petition that he is a Government employee and is working as Clerk in Civil Hospital, Nabha. His marriage took place on 7.3.1985 with one Ms. Darshan Kaur daughter of Devi Dyal of Village Chassi, Tehsil Samrala. On 7.1.1986, the petitioner moved an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was latter on converted into a petition under Section 13 of the said Act, on the ground of desertion and the wife being suffering from mental disorder. That petition was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 28.5.1991 and F.A.O. No. 118 -M of 1991 is pending in this Court against that order. The petitioner has pertinently mentioned in the petition that two other brothers of the petitioner are married to two other sisters of his wife. He has also stated therein that now the father of his wife has made a complaint with the Women in Distress Cell, Patiala and consequently summons was sent to the petitioner to be present on 24.1.1992. The petitioner reached there on the said date and showed the person (as name of no police personnel was disclosed even on asking) summons. That man took the copy of the summons and told the petitioner to be present on 25.1.1992 as Superintendent of Police was to be present on that date.