S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Appli. No.392/2008 (Smt. Urmila alias Urmil Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of order : February 07, 2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr.J.P.S.Choudhary, P.P. for the State. Mr.R.Bhatnagar, for the first informant. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel appearing for the first informant. Perused the order impugned and the police investigation diary. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that husband and father-in-law of the complainant have been arrested and dowry articles have been recovered. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that when the husband and father-in-law of the complainant were arrested, they returned certain dowry articles, however, they specifically stated that the jewellery was entrusted to the mother-in-law Urmila and it is with her. The first informant of course received the articles but from perusal of the seizure memo, it nowhere appears that any jewellery has been returned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record some photographs of marriage of first informant's cousin wherein the first informant is said to have been wearing certain jewellery. There is allegation of harassing and assaulting to the first informant as also the jewellery articles have not yet been returned. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The bail application filed by the petitioner under section 438 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-