JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. by the husband and the parents-in-law of the first informant. 2. Mr. Vyas points out that the first informant was living separately since August, 1993 and she has lodged false report after she received the notice of the petition for divorce filed by the petitioner. Relying on the cases of Chanda v. State 1996(1) RCD 256 and Het Ram v. State of Raj. RLR 1988(1) 415 he submits that the petitioners' application deserves to be allowed. 3. Mr. Pareek, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Singh oppose the application. 4. The allegations in the first information report by Kanchan are that at the time of marriage the various ornaments-made of gold and silver-, clothes, utensiles and misc. items had been given to the petitioners but they refused to return the same even after sending notice to them. The allegations of causing cruelty have also been made against the petitioners. Keeping in view the fact that the property entrusted to the petitioners is to be recovered, it is not proper to accept this application, moreso, when a perusal of the diary does not show that the investigation is not in right direction. 5. Coming to the cases cited by Mr. Vyas, it may be stated that in the case of Het Ram (supra) the important fact noticed was that no demand for the return of property was ever made by the wife. It is in this context that this Court thought it proper to grant anticipatory bail. 6. In the case of Chanda v. State (supra) noticing that the report was lodged after filing of the divorce petition by the husband, this Court granted anticipatory bail. A reading of the judgment does not show as to whether in that case property had not already been recovered. Apart from that, a perusal of the case diary shows that before filing of the petitioner for divorce by Sanjay, Smt. Kanchan had already sent a registered notice to him on 27.1.99 which was refused by the addressee. It is obvious that Sanjay filed the petition for divorce after he knew that his wife Kanchan had approached an advocate and some case was likely to be filed against him. Therefore, on the ground that before the FIR was lodged divorce petition had already been filed by Sanjay, the application does not deserve to be allowed. It is obvious that Sanjay filed the petition for divorce after he knew that his wife Kanchan had approached an advocate and some case was likely to be filed against him. Therefore, on the ground that before the FIR was lodged divorce petition had already been filed by Sanjay, the application does not deserve to be allowed. Moreover there is nothing on record to believe that Kanchan had already been served with the notice of the divorce petition before she lodged the FIR. Though a fact has been stated at para no. 2 of the petition to this effect but no affidavit has been filed in support of the fact that Kanchan had already received notice of the divorce petition, before she filed the complaint. 7. Having gone through the material in the case diary, I do not find it a fit case in which the application anticipatory bail should be allowed. 8. Consequently, the application is dismissed.Bail Application Rejected. *******