JUDGMENT 1. - Apprehending her arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 127/2006 of Police Station, Deogarh for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C., Smt. Swati has preferred this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. It is an old saving that marriages are made in heaven but here is a case wherein the parties to the marriage entered into an agreement before their marriage by fixing terms and conditions for its sustenance. Both the spouses married earlier also, however, one of them became widower and the other was a descried divorce. The facts and circumstances, which have come on record, gesture towards the fate of this second marriage of the spouses which could not flourish and has come to a broken end within a period of 15 to 20 days. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner because in the complaint the allegations are made to the effect that petitioner did not live with her husband and left him within 15-20 days of the marriage. According to the learned counsel, after the marriage when petitioner came to Deogarh and started living with her husband at that point of time the husband forced her to go in the company of so many persons. The learned counsel further submits that the husband wanted the petitioner to take liquor and to do all nasty things to which a Hindu lady would never agree. It has also been submitted that before the marriage took place, the parties entered into an agreement on 27.6.2005 and in Para No. 6 of the agreement it has been specifically stated that there had been no money transaction between the parties in relation to the marriage. The learned counsel submits that had there been a fact like this i.e., a sum of Rs. 10 lacs was given to the petitioner for the welfare of her kids by the complainant then definitely this fact would have been mentioned in the agreement itself. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that infact after leaving the complainant husband the petitioner went to her parental house and from there also threats were received from the complainant side and the complainant launched complaints before the police authorities at Indore. According to the learned counsel this complaint has been filed by the complainant to save himself. According to the learned counsel this complaint has been filed by the complainant to save himself. The learned counsel has submitted further that the petitioner was granted interim bail and in view of orders passed by this Court on 29 6.2006 the petitioner presented herself before the Investigating Officer, who after making necessary inquiry left the petitioner. In this connection, the learned counsel has invited my attention towards the letter which was presented before the SHO, Deogarh, which is available at Page 61 of the file wherein it is stated that after enquiry she .was released. The learned counsel submitted further that she has also filed an affidavit before the Investigating Officer wherein everything was stated and the fact that after an agreement was executed between the parties, the marriage was solemnized in Arya Samaj temple and no money transaction took place for the marriage. The learned counsel submits that as regards some ornaments etc. are concerned that were given at the time of marriage and that being the Stree-dhan of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner has in any manner cheated the complainant. It has also been submitted that the allegations, which have been leveled in the complaint against the petitioner, are absolutely false because the complainant is simply a Manager in Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti and if any such huge amount was withdrawn by him from somewhere then there should be some proof in that regard, which is completely missing. In last, it is submitted that other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 2282, 2283 and 2293 of 2006, therefore, petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently argued that in this case poor complainant has been cheated by the petitioner and in fact he has been trapped. He submits that the petitioner was a divorce and the complainant being a widower, the family members of both side considered it proper that complainant and petitioner should marry, and on the condition placed by the petitioner's family that for the welfare of petitioner's two children he should pay Rs. 10 lacs and in all the complainant should pay Rs. 12 lacs, he agreed to it. According to the learned counsel Rs. 10 lacs and in all the complainant should pay Rs. 12 lacs, he agreed to it. According to the learned counsel Rs. 10 lacs were paid to the petitioner and Rs. 2 lacs were spent in ornaments, marriage etc. and the petitioner left the complainant just after 15 days of the marriage on a false pretext as she has alleged in the complaints made by her to the police authorities at Indore. It has also been submitted that in the instant case recoveries are yet to be made from the petitioner and the conduct of the petitioner is such which dis-entitles her to seek the bail because no husband would within a span of 15 days after paying huge amount of money would ask a lady to go with other person or to drink. The contention of the learned counsel is that in fact petitioner under the garb marriage has managed to extract Rs. 10 lacs and now trying to harass the complainant by filing false complaints at Indore. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. The facts which have come on record and particularly the agreement which was executed between the parties, prima facie establishes one thing that parties decided that there should not be any money transaction in relation to the marriage. It also appears that the petitioner has lodged various complaints at Indore to the Police Authorities in which she has narrated the entire episode and also stated that she was being threatened. It appears from the case diary that investigation from the accused-petitioner was also made and by the documents submitted by the petitioner, it appears that after making investigation she was relieved. 7. It appears from the case diary that investigation from the accused-petitioner was also made and by the documents submitted by the petitioner, it appears that after making investigation she was relieved. 7. After taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would not be proper to make any comment now on the correctness of the documents placed on record by the petitioner because that may affect either side of the case but taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner produced herself before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer after investigation relieved her and further for the reason that other co-accused in this case have already been granted bail, though the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant has been that other co- accused were granted bail for the reason that the contention of the other co- accused petitioners was that the main accused in the case was the present petitioner, be as it may, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be granted benefit of bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Smt. Swati by I.O./S.H.O. in F.I.R. No. 127/2006 P.S. Deogarh, she be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer on the following conditions: (i) That she shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) That she shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Courts or to any police officer and; (iii) That she shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Anticipatory bail application allowed. *******