JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - Accused Anil Samwal has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.210 dated 15.06.2011, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Tripri, District Patiala. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 3. Petitioner is husband of the complainant. Their marriage was solemnized on 12.12.2009, but it appears that soon after the marriage, trouble started for the complainant. She was turned out of the matrimonial home after 15 days of the marriage after giving her beatings. Demand of Rs.5 lacs was made. When efforts of complainant’s family failed to convince the petitioner and his parents, the complainant moved application to police in August 2010. Pursuant thereto, mutual compromise was effected on 14.12.2010. The complainant was taken to matrimonial home on 22.12.2010, but again, the same treatment continued i.e. demand of Rs.5 lacs and torture of the complainant. On 24.02.2011, the complainant’s mother came to the petitioner’s house pursuant to telephone call, which the complainant was forced to make on 21.02.2011. Complainant’s mother brought Rs.1 lac. The petitioner and his parents snatched the said amount and shut the complainant and her mother in a room and they were released and turned out of the petitioner’s house on 25.02.2011. The complainant moved application on 23.03.2011 to the police leading to the registration of this FIR on 15.06.2011. 4. Counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and there are only vague and general allegations. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported as 2011 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 126, laying down the guidelines for anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, contended that Fixed Deposit in the name of the complainant for Rs.15,000/- and her gold ornaments are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 7. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, contended that Fixed Deposit in the name of the complainant for Rs.15,000/- and her gold ornaments are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 7. The instant FIR cannot be said to be counter blast to divorce petition filed by the petitioner on 14.03.2011 because the complainant moved the application to police on 23.03.2011, even before receipt of notice in the divorce petition i.e. without having knowledge of the divorce petition. 8. Petitioner being husband of the complainant is supposed to be her protector. It cannot be said that there are vague and general allegations against the petitioner. There are specific allegations against the petitioner and his both parents. Dowry articles and Fixed Deposit Receipt of the complainant are yet to be recovered. 9. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 10. Dismissed, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case. ------------