AB 2901/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rita Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. Assam for the State respondent. The petitioner No. 3 is the husband of the first informant Sita Gowala while pet itioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the parent-in-laws. All the 3 petitioners being related as indicated above, apprehending arrest in connection with Pulibor P.S. Case No . 240/2011 which came to be registered on the basis of the information lodged by Smti. Sita Gowala have filed this petition u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest ba il. On the date of motion this Court after perusal of the materials available on the record provided interim bail vide order dated 16.09.2011 to the petitioners. No w Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel in support of the petition submits that t he allegation of demand of dowry made by the first informant against the petitio ners do not have any basis whatsoever since the parents in-laws are staying sep arately. In other words they are living apart from the first informant and her h usband petitioner No. 3. It is also submitted by Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Sr. co unsel for the petitioners that at no point of time the petitioners did make any demand of dowry as alleged by the first informant. The first informant and the p etitioner No. 3 got married as a result of their love in 2000 and they are livin g separately from petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. In the face of the facts and circumst ances of the case, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners prays this court to allow this petition in favour of the petitioners. Mr. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent taking recourse of the materials available in the C.D. submits that there is no material forth coming as against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 since the petitioners are living separately from the first informant. Taking note of his submission and the mater ials placed before this court, this court finds sufficient force in the submissi on advanced by Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel. Resultantly, taking note of all the materials in its entirety the interim order for bail granted in favour of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is made absolute. However, the interim bail provided in favour of petitioner No. 3 vide order date d 16.9.2011 stands vacated and accordingly his prayer stands dismissed. The peti tioner No. 3 would be at liberty to approach the learned CJM concerned for his r egular bail