JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.86 dated 09.10.2011 under Sections 363, 366-A of Indian Penal Code (Section 379 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Meharban, District Ludhiana, Punjab. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. This Court on 29.02.2012 passed the following order:- “Heard. As per allegations, petitioner had enticed away daughter of complainant who was minor at that time. However, daughter of complainant had appeared before this Court and stated that she had performed marriage with petitioner and that she is residing with the petitioner as his wife and she wants to reside with the petitioner only. Petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail by the arresting officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. He is directed to join the investigation on 7.3.2012 at 10.00 am and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. Adjourned to 3.4.2012.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 29.02.2012. 5. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has already joined the investigation. However, the bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that it was a void marriage as petitioner and prosecutrix are first cousins. It is further contended that daughter of complainant had also taken away Rs.25 lacs from the house of her parents while running with the petitioner. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that daughter of complainant performed marriage at her own free will with the petitioner and now she is having six months old pregnancy. It is also contended that account of petitioner has also been freezed by the police in this case. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that daughter of complainant performed marriage at her own free will with the petitioner and now she is having six months old pregnancy. It is also contended that account of petitioner has also been freezed by the police in this case. It is further submitted that even as per version in the FIR, there is vague allegation that some money was taken away by daughter of complainant from her house without specifying any amount. It is also contended that even as per affidavit filed on behalf of State, the alleged sale deed was executed on 30.06.2011 and the amount was alleged given in cash. 7. Be that as it may, it is a matter of evidence regarding validity of the marriage and regarding daughter of complainant taking away specific amount from her house. Petitioner has already joined the investigation. Daughter of complainant is also residing with the petitioner and she is having six months old pregnancy. 8. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Gulzar Singh is accepted and order dated 29.02.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------