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. 62 dated 17.05.2012, under Sections 498A/406 IPC, registered at police station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 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, Sri Muktsar Sahib dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner. 3. Brief allegations are that, marriage of petitioner was performed with complainant-Madhu Bala on 16.02.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Before the marriage, there was an engagement ceremony on 28.06.2009. Sufficient articles were given as dowry in the engagement and marriage by the parents of complainant. Petitioner being husband and other family members were not satisfied with the same and they started committing acts of cruelty upon the complainant. A child was born out of the wedlock and however, he expired due to acts of harassment and cruelty being committed upon the complainant by petitioner-husband and other family members. There are specific allegations of the acts of physical and mental torture being committed by petitioner and family members upon the complainant. Petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce, which is still pending. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that all the articles except car have already been recovered from father of the petitioner-accused, who has already been granted bail. It is further contended that only car remains to be recovered and however, the same was purchased by him even before the marriage. 5. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent-State that there are serious allegations against petitioner-accused of committing acts of harassment and cruelty upon the complainant on account of dowry. It is further contended that though car was purchased before marriage and the same was registered in the name of petitioner on his request and however, the price was paid by father of the complainant. Hence, it is contended that the car also belongs to the complainant and the same is to be recovered. 6. Hence, keeping in view the serious allegations against petitioner-accused, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted. 7. Hence, it is contended that the car also belongs to the complainant and the same is to be recovered. 6. Hence, keeping in view the serious allegations against petitioner-accused, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Gursharan Kumar is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. ---------0.B.S.0------------