IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11149 of 2010 YAMUN MAHASETH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 01.12.2010 Heard the parties. By an order dated 27.4.2010 notice was issued to O.P. no.2 (complainant) to show cause as to why prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with criminal prosecution under sections 498A, 494 and some other allied offences of the Indian Penal Code be not allowed. Interim protection was also granted to the petitioner for a period of three months by the order dated 27.4.2010. Since O.P. No.2 did not choose to appear despite order dated 27.4.2010 fresh notice was ordered to be issued to O.P. No.2 by an order dated 5.7.2010. Notices have been validly served on O.P. no.2, yet she has chosen not to appear before this Court for opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the prosecution case also the marriage had taken place between the petitioner and the complainant about 20 years ago and from their wed lock three children were born. By referring to Annexure-2, it is further submitted that the petitioner has gifted the entire agricultural land in favour of his minor sons born from the wed lock with the complainant and the complainant has been shown as guardian of those minors. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is 2 inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory to the petitioner and it is accordingly allowed. The above named petitioner in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M, Madhubani in connection with Complaint Case No. 1893 of 2008, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. M.Rahman ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )