In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 15712 of 2009 Decided on Sept17,2009. Komal Sudhir -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Hitesh Kaplish,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.R.S.Rawat,AAG,Punjab. Mrs.G.K.Mann, Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No. 21 dated 22.1.2009 under Sections 406/498-A, 317 IPC at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Naresh Kumar son of Gopal Krishan, father of Pooja (daughter-in-law of the petitioner). The allegations in the FIR are that of subjecting the daughter of the complainant with cruelty for demand of dowry and usurping her 'Istridhan'. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was was dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 4.4.2009. During the course of hearing, on the request of both the CRM-M 15712 of 2009 -2- learned counsel for the parties, efforts were made to find out if there could be an amicable settlement, but ultimately it failed. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present FIR is a counter blast to the petition filed by son of the petitioner for divorce on 10.1.2009 in which he had alleged that as per DNA report, the second daughter was not sired by her son Vikrant. It is submitted that both her son and husband have been released on regular bail. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State/respondent assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the dowry articles including jewellery are yet to be recovered, which according to the son of the petitioner are with the petitioner as observed by the learned Court below in para 2 of its order dated 4.4.2009. It appears from the record that while son of the petitioner and her husband were in custody, recovery could not be effected as the son had made a statement that keys of locks of the room where the dowry articles are lying are with the petitioner. Thus, in my view, custody of the petitioner is essential for the purpose of recovery of the dowry articles. In view of the above, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence the bail application is hereby dismissed. Nothing stated here-in-above, shall, however, be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case before the Court below. Sept 17,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge