IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36412 of 2009 1.RAJA RAM YADAV son of late Yaddu Yadav 2.Sushila Devi wife of Raja Ram yadav 3.Kamal Kumari d/o Raja Ram Yadav 4.Shivani Kumari d/o Raja Ram Yadav, 5.Shimpal Kumari d/o Raja Ram yadav, all are resident of village Giyan Tola, P.O. + P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Dist. Begusarai 6.Jai Rani Devi @ Jag Rani Devi wife of Prabhash Yadav 7.Prabhash Yadav son of Nageshwar yadav, both are resident of Vabhnathpur Makeshpur Tola P.S. Akbar Nagar, Dist. Bhagal;pur 8.Phul Rani Devi wife of Dablu Yadav d/o Raja Ram yadav 9.Dablu Yadav son of Bindeshwar yadav both are resident of Kalyanchak P.S. Munger, Muffasil, Dist. Munger, ….Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2 3.2.2010 Heard Shri Shashidhar Jha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Ravi S. Pankaj learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. no.2 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in complaint case no. 225( C) of 2009 instituted under sections 498 A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case notice was issued to the O.P. no.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. no.2 has supported her case. However, on going through the record it transpires that in the year 2005 itself the petitioner had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the family court and thereafter in 2007 a suit vide divorce suit No. 37 of 2007 was decreed in his favour which was of course ex-parte decree. It was submitted on behalf of the O.P. no.2 that she is ready to reside with the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that divorce suit has already been decreed, this court while entertaining a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. is not in a position to pass any favourable order in favour of - 2 - O.P. no.2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the petitioner had taken steps for restitution of conjugal rights long back in the year 2005, and thereafter a decree of divorce has already been passed in favour of the petitioner, this court is inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. Let the above named petitioners in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within four weeks from today be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M, Khagaria, in the above noted case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Rakesh Kumar, J) M.Rahman