IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44746 of 2009 RITESH KUMAR son of Shri Mahendra Mandal R/o Purani Bazar, Durga Asthan, P.S.-Sultanganj, Dist.-Bhagalpur ……… ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Archana Kumri @ Soni Kumari, wife of Ritesh Kumar, daughter of Anil Kushwaha, Vill.-Shadipur near Badi Durga Asthan, P.O.-Munger, P.S.-Kowwali, Dist.-Munger …… …….Opp. Party. ----------- 3. 24.5.2010. The sole petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.888C of 2008, which was instituted for the offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail. In this case earlier on 19.2.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to add complainant as opposite party no.2 and this court directed for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2. Despite valid service of notice on opposite party no.2, she has not chosen to appear in the present case. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 on 7.8.2008 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.888C of 2008 in which the complainant has arrayed all the family members of the petitioner as accused alleging therein that for the purpose of extracting dowry from the parents of the complainant, the complainant was physically and mentally harassed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition, firstly submits that in this case father and mother of the petitioner, namely, Mahendra Mandal and Pawo Devi had 2 approached this court vide Cr.Misc. No. 28345 of 2009 and they were allowed anticipatory bail on 29.10.2009. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a vegetable vendor and since the opposite party no.2 had deserted him, he had filed a case bearing T.S. (Mat.) Case No.99 of 2008. In the said case opposite party no.2 had appeared before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger. Opposite party no.2 refused to go along with this petitioner, despite persuasion of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record photo copy of the certified copy of the order dated 5.8.2008 passed in T.S.(Mat.) Case No.99 of 2008 vide annexure-5 of the petition at page 25 which is as follows: “Both parties are in attendance. The O.P. Archana Kumari @ Soni Kumari was asked to go to him with her husband Ritesh Kumar petitioner but she flatly refused to do so at any cost for reasons best known to her. Put up on 31.8.2008 for filing W.S.” On perusal of the order dated 5.8.2008 it is evident that on 5.8.2008 opposite party no.2 refused to go along with her husband i.e. the petitioner. However, immediately thereafter the present complaint was filed on 7.8.2008. In view of the order dated 5.8.2008 coupled with the fact that despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, has not appeared before this court, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to privilege of anticipatory bail and this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, the above named 3 petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Harendra Nath, S.D.J.M., Munger, in connection with Complaint Case No.888C of 2008 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)