IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.140 of 2009 1.BINOD KUMAR MAHTO S/O-Piyar Chandra Mahto 2.YASHWANTI DEVI W/O- Piyar Chandra Mahto All are R/O-Mohalla-Tejatola (Vidyanagar), Ward No.-5, P.S.-Sahayak Katihar, Distt.-Katihar. …………………………………………..Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……………………………………..Opposite Party. ----------- 2/ 10.02.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case which has been registered under Sections 498A, 494 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation is that the Petitioner No. 1 has married with Chandana Devi one year prior to the occurrence and was living along with her. Submission is that cognizance has been taken only under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are ready to keep the complainant in their house with full dignity which she deserves. Case of Petitioner No. 1 is quite different from the case of Petitioner No. 2. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the Petitioner No. 2 is allowed who is mother-in-law of the complainant namely Yashwanti Devi, she is directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and on her so surrendering she shall by - 2 - released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ved Prakash Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Complaint Case No.- C.A. 3151 of 2007, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. So far the Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, his case cannot be equated with others. Considering this, I am not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. kksinha/ (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)