JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) - This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M.Nos.M-25686 and 27085 of 2011, filed by Bishna Ram and Salochna respectively, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.200, dated 12.10.2010, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. 3. Briefly stated petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant, who was married with son of petitioners, namely, Narinder Kumar, in January 2008. Sufficient articles were given in the dowry by parents of the complainant. However, petitioners and other family members were not satisfied with the same. There are specific allegations that on 2.9.2009 when husband of complainant was not at home, present petitioners-accused alongwith some other persons had thrown her in a scorpio vehicle and dropped her at Sirsa and regarding the same, separate FIR was lodged by the complainant in which petitioners are facing trial. Panchayat was also convened by parents of complainant to settle the dispute on 6.9.2010 and, however, even in the presence of panchayat complainant and other family members were abused. There are further specific allegations that one of the petitioners, i.e., mother-in-law Salochna instigated husband of the complainant as to why her father was bringing panchayat daily for settling the matter and, that however, she would not be allowed to live in matrimonial home unless a new car and Rs.15 lacs are paid. At that time, complainant was tried to be strangulated by petitioner-accused Smt.Salochna. There was demand of Endeavour car. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionersaccused that husband of complainant has already been arrested and released on regular bail and that though efforts were made for re-conciliation and, however, the same could not be effected. Further contended that golden ornaments weighing 92 tolas were already taken away by the complainant with her and that dowry articles have already been returned. It is also contended that for that purpose he has also moved an application for trial Court for getting Narco test of the parties conducted. 5. Further contended that golden ornaments weighing 92 tolas were already taken away by the complainant with her and that dowry articles have already been returned. It is also contended that for that purpose he has also moved an application for trial Court for getting Narco test of the parties conducted. 5. Bail applications have been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant as well as by learned State counsel on the plea that it has been admitted by husband of complainant, i.e., son of present petitioners, in civil suit filed by him against complainant that golden ornaments weighing 92 tolas were given in the marriage. Further submitted that false plea is being taken by the petitioners that the said golden ornaments were already taken away by the complainant whereas the same are still in the custody of present petitioners. Further contended that respondent-complainant even after acts of cruelty being committed upon her is still ready to go with her husband and, however, petitioners and other family members are not ready to keep her in the matrimonial home. 6. There are serious and specific allegations against the petitioners-accused. They are parents-in-law of the complainant. There are specific allegations of acts of physical violence being committed upon the complainant by the petitioners and other accused. Main dowry articles, i.e., golden ornaments weighing 92 tolas, are yet to be recovered. Despite all the acts of cruelty, complainant is still ready to go with her husband, however, petitioners and husband of complainant are not ready to keep her in the matrimonial home. 7. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the present petitions filed by petitioners-Bishna Ram and Salochna for grant of anticipatory bail are hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 8. Interim orders dated 25.8.2011 and 9.9.2011 stand vacated. ---------0.B.S.0------------