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.25 dated 12.04.2011, under Sections 498a/494/406/506 IPC, registered at police station Khilchian, District Amritsar Rural. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. 3. Brief allegations against petitioners-accused are that, daughter of complainant, Narinder Kaur was married with petitioner no.1 in Germany. After the marriage, petitioner no.2 and other family relatives visited the residence of complainant and raised demand of money and also raised demand for arranging tickets for them to go to Germany so that they may attend the marriage party. The said demand was fulfilled by the complainant in the hope that his daughter would be kept properly. He also purchased some dowry articles and handed over the same to petitioner no.2 and other family members. Daughter of complainant also spent money in Germany on travel of her parents-in-law. Complainant had also gone to Germany and arranged a big party as per demand of petitioners and family members. Sufficient articles were given in dowry. Petitioner no.1 told daughter of complainant that he had received telephonic call from his parents that they were not given dowry as promised by the complainant in India and that they had not received a car and hence, petitioner no.1 demanded car from his wife Narinder Kaur for his parents. When this fact came to the knowledge of parents of Narinder Kaur, they again went to the house of petitioner no.2 and requested her that they had already spent Rs.30,00,000/- in the marriage and they had also given dowry articles as per their capacity and however, she told that theirs was family of Numberdars and that their image in the society was lowered for not given car in the dowry. After few days, Narinder Kaur again gave a call to her parents that her husband was not behaving properly and raising demand of car. Hence, Rs.5,00,000/- were handed over by complainant to petitioner no.2, Gurnam Kaur and other family members in India for purchasing a car. However, harassment continued on the plea that the amount was not sufficient to purchase a car. Petitioner no.1 left the house alongwith 5000 German currency and golden articles. Narinder Kaur gave birth to a daughter and however, petitioner no.1 did not visit her. However, harassment continued on the plea that the amount was not sufficient to purchase a car. Petitioner no.1 left the house alongwith 5000 German currency and golden articles. Narinder Kaur gave birth to a daughter and however, petitioner no.1 did not visit her. Petitioner no.2 and other family members also did not visit her. When complainant visited the house of petitioner no.2, no proper response was given. Thereafter, complainant visited village Madehpur where petitioner no.1 was also present. Petitioner no.1 and his parents demanded Rs.50,00,000/- for petitioner no.1 to start business in India. Complainant and his daughter came to know that petitioner no.1 had performed second marriage with Rupinder Kaur daughter of Harjit Singh. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners-accused that marriage was performed in Germany and that all the alleged dowry articles were also entrusted in Germany. It is also contended that petitioner no.1 has not performed any second marriage and that matter was already inquired by the police and it came during inquiry that no second marriage was performed by petitioner no.1. 5. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for complainant as well as by learned counsel for respondent-State on the plea that subsequent inquiry was held in which factum of performing second marriage by petitioner no.1 with Rupinder Kaur in India has been proved. It is further contended that demand and payment of Rs.5,00,000/- in India for purchasing car is also proved. It is also contended that payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was also made in India by complainant to petitioner no.1 and family members when complainant had gone to the house of petitioners in village Madehpur. It is also contended that some of the dowry articles were entrusted in Germany and however, some articles were entrusted in India to the parents of petitioner no.1 and that offence is continuing one hence, it cannot be said that no cause action has arisen in India. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent-State, on instruction from ASI Baldev Singh, that though petitioners have joined the investigation and however, no dowry articles have been recovered. 6. There are serious allegations of harassment and cruelty on the daughter of complainant on account of dowry by the petitioners and other family members in India as well as in Germany. Some of the articles were entrusted in India and some of the articles entrusted in Germany. 6. There are serious allegations of harassment and cruelty on the daughter of complainant on account of dowry by the petitioners and other family members in India as well as in Germany. Some of the articles were entrusted in India and some of the articles entrusted in Germany. It has also come during investigation that petitioner no.1 has performed second marriage with Rupinder Kaur in India. Cruelty is to the extent that petitioner no.1 has performed second marriage without seeking divorce from daughter of complainant i.e. his previous wife. 7. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Gagandeep Singh and Gurnam Kaur is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. 9. Interim order dated 07.03.2012 already granted in their favour stands vacated. ---------0.B.S.0------------