JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this application for grant of Anticipatory-bail, in F.I.R. Case No. 2/88 registered at P.S. Sadulsahar under section 406, 498-A read with 109 IPC. 2. Mr. Jain appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the non- petitioner is living separately from the husband for the past about 3 and a half years and, interfere, be has filed the divorce petition against the petitioner on 24.7.87 on that ground of cruelty and desertion in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner wherein summons were served on the complainant and an advocate put in appearance on behalf of the complainant Mst. Nanu in the Court of Distt Judge, Bekaner on 3/10/87. Later, the case was posted on 28/11/87 for re-conciliation proceedings and again it was fixed for 16/1/88 because the parties did not appear for re-conciliation. In the meanwhile, it appears that the complainant has filed this complaint at P.S. Sadulsahar. Mr. Niridul Jain has submitted that when she is living separately from him for the past about three and a half years, her allegation of harassment for bringing more dowry cannot be accepted because the petitioners had no occasion to do that Mr. Jain further submitted that although, it has been alleged by him in the divorce petition that the complainant has gone to her father's house alongwith all her articles. but even if some dowry articles are with them, they have to be returned when demanded and in this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and anr., reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 628 wherein it has been held that so far as dowry articles are concerned, wife is the absolute owner and husband and in laws are trustees of such property and are bound to return the same as and when demanded by the married woman. He has submitted that in this case no such demand has been made. 3. Mr. S.K. Mathur appearing for the state has submitted that in this case, the accused has filed divorce petition which clearly shows that he does not want to carry on with Mst. Nanu as his wife and to reside with her. He has submitted that in this case no such demand has been made. 3. Mr. S.K. Mathur appearing for the state has submitted that in this case, the accused has filed divorce petition which clearly shows that he does not want to carry on with Mst. Nanu as his wife and to reside with her. The very filing of the application for grant of divorce clearly shows that he and his family members wants to usurp dowry property and, therefore, in such cases anticipatory-bail should not be granted to the accused persons. 4. I have gone through the case diary. 5. Without expressing any opinion about the merits of the case set up by the parties. I deem it proper to accept the bail application filed by the accused petitioners and order that if P.S. Sadulsahar arrests accused petitioners Hetram, Bhani Ram and Surja Ram, they be released on bail on furnishing a personal bord in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ each together with two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 2,500/- each and if the learned MJM Sadul Sahar decides to summon the accused through warrants of arrest these three accused petitioners will be summoned through bailable warrants each in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The accused-persons are directed to make themselves available for interrogation and investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. They are further directed that they will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or compromise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to and police officer. They are further directed that they will not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 6. With the aforesaid conditions this application for grant of anticipatory bail is accepted.Bail Granted. *******