IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8288 of 2009 MD.FARID ALAM SON OF MD. ZAMIRUDDIN ANSARI R/O- MOHALLA RAHMATGANJ, P.S.- BANK MORE, DISTRICT- DHANBAD, PRESENTLY POSTED AS SENIOR RESIDENT DOCTOR, I.G.I.M.S., RAJA BAZAR, SHEIKHPURA, P.S.- SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. KHURSHEED, SON OF MD. MUMTAZ R/O- MOHALLA KATHAL BARI, P.S.- L.N.M. UNIVERSITY, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ----------- 2 11.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-I, Darbhanga to the O.P. no. 2 (husband of the deceased) in Sessions Trial No. 453 of 2008. It is contended that on 23.7.2008 (Annexure-3), prayer for grant of regular bail made on behalf of O.P. no. 2 was rejected by the aforesaid court. Five months thereafter, the bail has been granted by the said Court. This Court finds the following reason assigned by the learned court below in the impugned order: “ Having heard both sides and going through the case record it transpires that the petitioner carries omnibus allegation of demand of dowry along with other accused persons of this case and since similarly situated some persons were granted anticipatory bail by the court of Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga as mentioned above and co-accused, Md. Mumtaz has been granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court Patna vide order dated 11.11.08 passed in Cr. Misc. as stated above and the petitioner is in custody since 6.6.2008. So, in view of the instructions and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Court in above mentioned Vijay Mandal and Babni Yadav cases, the petitioner in my view deserves to be released on bail as his case 2 is not distinguishable from the case of other accused persons of this case. “ Counsel for the petitioner handed in order dated 11.11.2008 passed by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. no. 32569 of 2008 whereby the father-in-law of the victim was granted bail. Learned counsel fairly states that there is no allegation of misuse of the privilege of bail. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that a case for cancellation of bail is made. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )