1 S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Appli. No.858/2008 (Gaina Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of order : February 28, 2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Rakesh Ramawat, for the petitioner. Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, P.P. for the State. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned as also the first information report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand of cash amount does not fall within the definition of demand of dowry. He has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW 456. On careful perusal of the FIR, in my view, the cash has been demanded as dowry and not only the cash has been demanded but it has also been given on certain occasions as dowry and there is allegation of misappropriation of “Stridhan” i.e. dowry articles belonging to the first informant and the question of recovery is involved. In the circumstances, therefore, 2 in my view, it is not at all 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/-