IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20762 of 2008 1.GANGA PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Ramashray Prasad Singh 2.BINOD KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Ganga Prasad Singh 3.AMOD KUMAR SINGH @ CHUNNU KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Ganga Prasad Singh All residents of Village Tengrahan, P.S. Minapur, District Muzaffarpur ---Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Preeti Singh, D/O Rajeev Kishore Singh, Bazar Samiti, P.S. Ahiyapur, District Muzaffarpur ---Opposite Parties ----------- 5. 25.3.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as opposite party no.2. The offence alleged against the petitioners, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No.268/2007, is under sections 498A, 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the case was lodged against them by the informant with false allegation to the effect that important papers and whatever gifted items the informant had got during her marriage was taken away by these accused persons after the death of her husband and for that separate case vide Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.168/2007 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged after the death of her husband. The further allegation is that the gift items and other important documents as well as the jewellery, clothes and cash etc. belonging to the husband of the informant was grabbed by the petitioners and thereby 2 causing mental torture to the informant and driven her out from the house. It is further alleged that the informant had lodged a separate case vide Jagi Road P.S. Case No.42/07 under sections 120B , 420 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code for grabbing the property of her husband. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the present case has been merely lodged against the petitioners in order to harass them with no specific allegations of torture against them. The cases lodged against them, as referred to above, had nothing to do with the present case. The learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioners in order to grab the property of the informant started torturing her as well as extended cruelty and also driven her out from her matrimonial house and as such the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned APP appearing for the State on perusal of the case diary submits that during investigation the father of the informant has stated that the demand by way of dowry was made by these petitioners which were fulfilled by him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let petitioners no.1 to 3 above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No.268/2007, within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3 Muzaffarpur, in connection with the aforesaid case, on the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)