IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42044 of 2011 Shankar Roy Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 2. 14.12.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Falka(Pothia) P.S.Case No. 204 of 2010 under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears from the records that earlier a complaint case was filed by the mother of the victim lady making an allegation that her daughter was married to the petitioner. Her daughter along with her husband had gone to Mumbai and thereafter she became traceless. It has been alleged that the complainant had an apprehension that on account of non-fulfilment of the dowry, her daughter had been killed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of the complaint case, the police investigated into the matter and submitted final form finding the allegation not true. The court below took cognizance under Section 498 A on the basis of the materials available in the case diary. It has further been contended in paragraph 7 of the present petition that the daughter of the complainant while living in Mumbai had developed an illicit relationship with one Akil Badsah Sheikh 2 and had deserted the petitioner and for that the petitioner had filed a case against the lady. In this connection, a photocopy of the F.I.R. which in Marathi language has been produced. It has further been contended that the petitioner has filed a case for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act bearing Matrimonial Case No. 500 of 2010 which is pending before the Principal Judge, Katihar. Looking to the facts and circumstances, let the petitioner Shankar Roy be directed to be released, either in the event of his arrest by the police or surrender before the court below within four weeks from today, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in the above noted case, subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. Kanth ( Shivaji Pandey, J.)