. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8960 of 2008 PAMMI DEVI @ PAMPI DEVI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners pray for anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 420, 468, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the complaint is that the complainant was a divorcee and was married to the father of petitioner no. 2 and father-in-law of petitioner no.1. Subsequently she has alleged that her husband has left her without making any provision and thereafter when she went to the house of these petitioners she was not allowed to live with them and they further instigated their father not to give her any share in the property, etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these petitioners cannot be saddled with any liability so far as the maintenance and looking after the complainant is concerned and they have been wrongly and falsely implicated in this case just to pressurize them. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioners, (1) Pammi Devi @ Pampi Devi and (2) Ajoy Nayak @ Ajoy Kumar Nayak, in the event of their arrest/surrender in the court below within four weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten 2 thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Complaint Case No. 1642 of 2007, Tr. No. 2645 of 2007, to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, subject to other applicable conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)