IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37639 of 2007 SUDHA DEVI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6. 24.6.2008 Heard. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in Chandi P.S.Case No. 321/2005 under sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are the mother-in-law and father-in- law. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the other two family members i.e. Bhaisur and Gotani of the deceased have been allowed anticipatory bail and the order indicates that the story of occurrence is doubtful. Apart from this, the evidence has been collected during investigation that the daughter of the informant was mentally imbalanced and was in the habit of leaving her matrimonial house on her own. Even her own aunt has supported this fact in paragraph 14 of the case diary. The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer and contended that there is clear allegation of demand of dowry and torture for the same and the daughter of the informant is still traceless. The petitioners are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the traceless/ deceased wife. Hence, their position is different from the position of other family members who have been allowed anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of both the sides, I do not feel inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Their prayer for bail is 2 Surendra/ rejected. However, the petitioners may surrender in the lower court and seek regular bail. In that event the learned lower court would consider their application on merit without being prejudiced by this order. ( Rekha Kumari,J.)