JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- Surinder Kaur, the mother-in-law and Tarunjit Singh, the husband of Jaswant Kaur, complainant, are seeking pre-arrest bail by way of this petition brought under the provisions of section 438 Cr. P.C. in a case registered by way of FIR No.53 dated 4.6.2011 at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The cohabitation between Jaswant Kaur and Tarunjit Singh had been short lived. She was married with petitioner, Tarunjit Singh on 13.2.2011 and cohabitation between the two ended on 23.5.2011. The main allegations of the complainant are that a cheque of Rs. 4.00 lacs, which was given in the name of the complainant as istridhan was desired by the petitioners to be given in the joint names of the complainant and Tarunjit Singh, the petitioner. Leaving aside the allegations that petitioner No.1, Surinder Kaur had told the complainant of very attractive offers her son was receiving, it may be mentioned that she was told to bring a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and a big car. She was also told to sign a cheque on the eve of her receiving her first salary after marriage in favour of Tarunjit Singh so that they could withdraw the salary and when she refused to do so, she was beaten. She had been turned out on 17.3.2011 in the presence of her father and brother by the petitioners. After the amount of Rs. 4.00 lacs was transferred as per the demand of the petitioners, the complainant was allowed to enter her matrimonial home on 8.5.2011. On 20.5.2011, she was taken to Manali for sight-seeing. There she was locked in the bathroom and when she raised alarm, they opened the bathroom to allow her to come out. The petitioners gave her slaps and fist blows. Her mobile phone was snatched. A sum of Rs.10,000/- along with ATM and PAN cards as also her driving licence were also snatched from her. She was reminded that she could be kept at her matrimonial home if the demand of Rs. 10.00 lacs and big car was met. When she told that her parents were not in a position to fulfill this demand, she was told that she could not be allowed to enter her matrimonial home. Consequently, she left the place and went to her parental home. 3. 10.00 lacs and big car was met. When she told that her parents were not in a position to fulfill this demand, she was told that she could not be allowed to enter her matrimonial home. Consequently, she left the place and went to her parental home. 3. A preliminary point was raised at the time of arguments by learned counsel for the complainant. According to him, this petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable because before filing of this case, the petitioners had been arrested by the police. In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana and others Vs. Dinesh Kumar, [2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 380.] : 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 725. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted on this point that on 4.7.2011, the petitioners were called by the police. According to him, they were not arrested by the police. He has drawn my attention in this regard to a copy of notice dated 27.6.2011, whereby the petitioner Surinder Kaur was called by Superintendent of Police (Detective) for enquiry. He has submitted that after enquiry, Surinder Kaur was allowed to go away. He has further submitted that in this situation, the petitions cannot be held to have lost their right to apply for anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that when the accused had surrendered to the authority of the investigation agency, they would be deemed to have been arrested. He has further submitted that submission to the custody by words of mouth or action by a person is sufficient. In this regard, he drew my attention to paragraphs No. 26 and 27 of the decision in Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra). 6. The FIR was recorded on 4.6.2011. Notice was given to Surinder Kaur, petitioner No.1 and even may be to the other petitioner on 27.6.2011 for enquiry. There is nothing on the record to show that they had been arrested by the police. 6. The FIR was recorded on 4.6.2011. Notice was given to Surinder Kaur, petitioner No.1 and even may be to the other petitioner on 27.6.2011 for enquiry. There is nothing on the record to show that they had been arrested by the police. The meaning of word “custody” was considered in Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra) with reference to the provisions of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and it is nowhere laid down therein that if a person against whom an FIR has been lodged is called by the police for enquiry, he would be deemed to be arrested and, therefore, deprived of the right to file an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are not in custody. If the petitioners were arrested, then learned counsel for the complainant would have to tell as to how the petitioners were released. 7. In these circumstances, I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the complainant in his submission that this petition by the petitioners for pre-arrest bail under the provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that before the complainant lodged the FIR, the petitioner, Surinder Kaur had made a complaint to the Chairman, Punjab State Mahila Commission (for short, “the Commission”) , a copy of which is Annexure P1, against the complainant alleging that she was misbehaving with them. She had also alleged therein that her daughter-in-law is being ill advised by her parents as well as her brother, Mr. Baljit Singh, who is an advocate. He has further submitted that on account of intervention of the Commission, the matter was settled and vide Annexure P4, Surinder Kaur withdrew her aforesaid complaint, made to the Commission. He has further submitted that the story about the demand of cheque to be given in joint name of the petitioners or in the name of the complainant and her husband is false. According to him, the amount of Rs.3,78,000/- from the said account was withdrawn by the complainant on 25.5.2011. He has further submitted that annexure P10 are a few photographs of the petitioners and the complainant taken during the tour of Manali where the complainant is seen enjoying. 9. Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected. 10. He has further submitted that annexure P10 are a few photographs of the petitioners and the complainant taken during the tour of Manali where the complainant is seen enjoying. 9. Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the recovery of dowry articles is yet to be effected. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the photographs were taken on the first and second day of the visit of Manali and that the unsavory incident of locking her in the bathroom and snatching the cards, money and mobile phone from her is of the last day. Learned counsel for the complainant has admitted on a question put by the court that Surinder Kaur had made a complaint to the Commission and that she had after some time, withdrawn the said complaint. He has, however, objected to the recital in the withdrawal application, which is to the effect that parents and brother of Jaswant Kaur have promised that they would not interfere in the married life of Tarunjit Singh in future and that they would not misguide their daughter and create problems in their life. 11. When making of the complaint is admitted and withdrawal of the complaint is admitted, the aforesaid recital therein, cannot be lightly discarded. The allegations against the petitioners are that on the last day of their tour to Manali, they had not only snatched every thing from the complainant but had also beaten her. The complainant has not stated as to how she returned from Manali. If she was beaten, she could even make a complaint to the police and could be got medically examined. Nothing such was done by her. 12. Keeping in view the factum of complaint made by Surinder Kaur, petitioner No.1 before the Commission and the contents of the application made by her withdrawing the said complaint as well as the fact that the amount of Rs. 3,78,000/- from the account opened with the cheque of Rs. 4,00,000/- had been withdrawn by the complainant herself, the petitioners seem to be entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 13. The petition is, consequently, allowed and the petitioners are granted the concession of anticipatory bail. They are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to the conditions mentioned in section 438(2)(i) to (iii) Cr.P.C. ----------------