Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16747 of 2011 (2) dt.24-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16747 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Manoj Chouhan son of Bideshwar Chouhan 2. Sushila Devi wife of Bideshwar Chouhan 3. Bideshwar Chouhan son of Panna Chouhan All residents of village-BabathanItba, PS-Raghopur, District-Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Prabhat Kumar Chouhan son of Kishori Chouhan, resident of village- Bhuthawai, PS-Singheshwar, District-Supaul. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.Salim Khan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. L.K.Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 24-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the counsel for the petitioners makes a prayer that he has instruction not to press this petition on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 and he wants to withdraw this petition for the petitioner No. 1 as it has been rendered infructuous. The prayer of petitioner No. 1 is allowed and this petition on his behalf is dismissed as infructuous. So far petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 13.4.2011 passed by the Sessions Court, Madhepura in Cr. Rev. No. 73 of 2010 by which he has rejected the revision petition. Earlier, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in A.B.P. No. 294 of 2008 by the Sessions court vide order dated Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16747 of 2011 (2) dt.24-08-2012 16.6.2009 but the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura vide order dated 30.9.2010 had cancelled the bail bond of the petitioners along with other persons on the ground that the petitioners and others have violated the terms of the agreement as the husband has entered into second marriage and expelled the lady from the matrimonial house. The counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, the husband has already been granted bail whereas these petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and father- in-law and the allegation has only been made against the husband and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be held responsible for second marriage of the husband. In view of the discussion, this Court finds merit in the argument of the counsel for the petitioners. The Revisional court order dated 13.4.2011 is set aside and accordingly, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2007, G.R. No. 886 of 2007 subject to condition as laid down [STATUTE] (2) Cr. P.C. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 438

Statute Text:
Section 438 of the Indian Penal Code. The mischief described in the last section when committed by fire or any explosive substance. Whoever commits, or attempts to commit, by fire or any explosive substance, such mischief as is described in the last preceding section. shall be punished with imprisonment for life. or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.