AB 2593/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. JUNM Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, l earned Addl. P.P for the State of Assam. Udharbond P.S Case No. 88 of 2011 came to be registered on the basis of an First Information Report lodged by one Must. Monowara Begum Barbhuiya, W/o. Nizam Udd in Barbhyiya, the petitioner No. 1 herein and Sister-in-law of Imad Uddin Barbhu iya, petitioner No. 2. In the First Information Report it is consistently allege d that after her marriage with petitioner No. 1 on account of her failure to sat isfy their dowry demand she had been mercilessly ill treated both mentally and p hysically. It is alleged further that their demand could not be satisfied on acc ount of her parents’ financial condition. Such ill treatment was meted out alleg edly to the informant by her husband, petitioner No. 1 at the instance of petiti oner No. 2, his brother. Ultimately on 10-8-2011 she some how escaped from the c lutch of the petitioners and took shelter in the residence of the her brother. S he further alleged that she sustained injuries in her person as a result of assa ult by her husband, petitioner No. 1. In the context of allegation so made we are constrained to peruse the materials available in the case diary. From the scrutiny, it appears that she approached a medical practitioner for treatment and examination of her injuries sustained by her and accordingly, doctor detected one haematoma of course old nature on her person stated to be simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. She was reporte dly examined on 24-8-2011. In view of the materials so far collected by the Investigating Officer it would go to show that Nizam Uddin Barbhuiya, her husband is solely responsible for her ill treatment both mental and physical on account of her failure to satisfy the ir demand for dowry. So this court does not consider it fit to provide privilege of pre arrest bail to petitioner No. 1, Nizam Uddin Barbhuiya. However, the mat erials so far collected appear to be insufficient to warrant a view as against t he petitioner No. 2. In the result, the prayer for grant of pre arrest bail in respect of petitioner No. 1, Nizam Uddin Barbhuiya stands rejected, while in respect of petitioner No. 2, Imad Uddin Barbhuiya, the interim provided vide order dated 24-8-2011 is mad e absolute. Application stands disposed of.