Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Heard. The case against the petitioner, whose son was married with Anupuma, was registered in Police Station Kotwali Bhatinda, on 12-12-1999. According to the complainant, the father of the complainant had agreed to give dowry and about Rs.5.00 lakhs were spent on the marriage, All kids of furniture utensils and boxes, one almirah. IV. clothes, washing machine, scooter tape recorder. VCR and 25 tolas gold, etc. were given and the articles of dowry were handed over to Baldev Raj, nephew of the petitioner and his mother-in-law Asha Rani. The petitioner had been given Rs.31,000.00 as Shagun and the husband was given Rs.25,000.00 . After the marriage, Asha Rani and Baldev Raj had, on many occasions, told the complainant to get 113rd share of his fatherts property and they had also started taunting her about having brought less dowry. On refusal of the parents of Anupurna to accede to the demands, she had been given beatings and threats were given that she would be burnt in case she did not bring the money. Her husband borrowed a motorcycle and left her at the house of her parents. When all efforts made by her parents and other respectable for her rehabilitation did not bear fruit, she had filed the FIR. 2. Anticipatory bail is being sought on behalf of Harbans Lal, the petitioner, primarily on the ground that the complaint has been filed by Anupurna as a counter blast to the petition filed by his son under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also submitted that there are no allegations against the petitioner and the only averment that has been made against him is of having received Rs.31,000/ as Shagun, which according to Baldev Singh V/s. Nasir Singh and Khwnan Chand V/s. State of Rajasthan does not fall within the definition of dowry. 3. In these circumstances, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no assertion has been made in the FIR about the petitioner having received any part of the dowry, and this was a fit case in which concession of anticipatory bail already granted to him should be made absolute. 4. On behalf of the State. Mr. 3. In these circumstances, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no assertion has been made in the FIR about the petitioner having received any part of the dowry, and this was a fit case in which concession of anticipatory bail already granted to him should be made absolute. 4. On behalf of the State. Mr. I. P. S. Sidhu, has strenuously tried to contest the merits of the pleas raised by the petitioners counsel, but when asked as to whether the police during investigation had recorded statement of any person Pin pointing the name of any member of the family to whom the dowry had been entrusted he had fairly indicated on instructions from ASI Ajaib Singh that no such statement has been recorded till date. Furthermore, the assertions regarding an amount of Rs.31.000/ having been handed over as Shagun, warrant drawing of an inference that no article of dowry had been handed over to the petitioner in view of the observations contained in 1992 (2) RCR 265 and 1998 (2) RCR 261 (supra) to this effect. 5. In view of it has been stated above. I am of the considered view that the order passed by me on 1-2-2000 has to be made absolute. Ordered accordingly. This order will enure till the date, on which the trial Court takes cognizance of the case. Petition allowed.