JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.:- This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 81 dated 02.05.2013 under sections 406/498-A I.P.C registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. On 3.7.2013, while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Contends that petitioner is ready to keep the complainant and the minor child in the matrimonial home. On oral request of counsel for the petitioner, complainant is permitted to be impleaded as a party as respondent no.2. However, petitioner is directed to bring Rs.25,000/- on the next date of hearing for being paid to respondent no.2 as her expenses for attending this Court. Notice of motion for 5.8.2013. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.” 3. It is not disputed that a sum of Rs.25,000/- already stands paid to the complainant/respondent no.2 towards litigation expenses. Furthermore, this Court has been informed that the efforts for reconciliation made before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court have not borne any fruit. 4. A perusal of the F.I.R would reveal that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 21.11.2011. A male child was born out of the wedlock on 25.11.2012. On account of strained relations the complainant was staying in her parental home and upon an application dated 21.1.2013 made by respondent no.2 to the S.S.P., Fatehgarh Sahib, the same was marked to the Saanjh Kendra and pursuantly a compromise was thrashed out between the parties. It is further the allegation of the complainant that in pursuance to the compromise, father of the complainant along with certain respectables of the family had left her at her in-laws’ house on 20.3.2013. It is further alleged that two days thereafter the mother-in-law and sister-inlaw had given beatings to her and even snatched the gold ornaments that she was wearing i.e. two gold bangles, two gold rings and one gold chain. That apart, as per F.I.R, there are certain vague allegations as regards the husband i.e. the present petitioner having given beatings to his wife and being an addict. 5. That apart, as per F.I.R, there are certain vague allegations as regards the husband i.e. the present petitioner having given beatings to his wife and being an addict. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has since joined investigation and there is no recovery of any dowry articles to be effected from him. 6. Learned State counsel upon instructions from SI Kartar Singh would apprise the Court that the petitioner has since joined investigation. 7. Present petition is, however, opposed by both learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the complainant stating that the gold ornaments are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. In this regard it would be useful to advert back to the F.I.R in which it is the complainant’s own version that such gold ornaments had been snatched by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. In the entire complaint there is no specific entrustment of dowry articles to the present petitioner. It has also gone undisputed that the sister-in-law as also mother-in-law have already been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. 8. In view of the factual position noticed herein above, I am of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. 9. The petition, accordingly, is allowed. Order dated 3.7.2013 is made absolute. 10. Petition disposed of.