JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Gurmeet Kaur who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.37, dated 09.11.2013, registered at Police Station, Thulliwal, District Barnala. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is wife of Constable Pargat Singh; she (Gurmeet Kaur) had a matrimonial dispute with her husband and an application for initiating proceedings against Pragat Singh was moved by the petitioner before the police on 05.11.2013; as soon as Pragat Singh came to know about the moving of the complaint against him by the petitioner, he became active and at his instance, Gurpreet Kaur, the complainant of the present case, lodged a false complaint against her at Police Station, Thulliwal; concededly, the second aunt (bua of the complainant) was present at the time of handing over of the alleged ornaments to the petitioner, in that eventuality, there was no occasion for the complainant to hand over the ornaments to the petitioner rather she could hand over the same to Harbans Kaur, the alleged bua of the complainant. She also contends that in compliance of the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2013, the petitioner has joined the investigation and co-operated with the Investigating Agency. She also added that the husband of the petitioner got yet another FIR lodged against the petitioner on 01.02.2014 wherein the allegations are that the complainant of the case was sexually harassed by Rajbir Singh in connivance with the petitioner which is apparently a false case. 3. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ajaib Singh, Police Station, Thulliwal, District Barnala, very fairly concedes that the petitioner has joined the investigation, however, the alleged ornaments were not recovered. 4. Sh.J.S.Bhinder, learned counsel for the complainant and Sh.Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate, appointed by the Legal Aid Committee of this Court to represent the complainant, though opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner but could not substantiate their submissions as to why the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the present case. Heard. 5. Keeping in view the rival contentions but without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2013 are made absolute. 6. Heard. 5. Keeping in view the rival contentions but without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2013 are made absolute. 6. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C. ---------0.B.S.0------------