IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49048 of 2007 NAHESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 07.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.P. for the State. In the complaint case no.128 C/2007 based on the allegations made therein, cognizance under Section 323, 379, 497, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been made out. Though the entire family members have been made accused but it is the husband who is before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that there seems to be a serious misunderstanding which has been created between him and his wife which has led to filing of the complaint case. He is willing to keep his wife and treat her with respect. Looking at the vehement opposition which has been taken by the counsel for the complainant something terribly has gone wrong between the relationship which does not make this Court very happy specially looking at the 2 fact that the marriage was solemnized just about a year back. Taking into consideration however that the petitioner is an employee and rejection of bail shall jeopardize his service, in the given facts and circumstances, in the event of his arrest/surrender within four weeks from today, let the petitioner namely Mahesh Kumar, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Munger in connection with Complaint Case No. 128 C/2007 subject to conditions under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. This court only hopes and wishes that better sense shall prevail upon the parties to work out an amicable solution because they have a long life waiting ahead of them which they have to handle. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)