AB 78/2011 BEFORE HON\BLE MR JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY Heard Mr. SC Biswas, learned counsel for the accused petitioners . Also heard Mr . B S Sinha, ld. Addl.P.P. for the State. Case diary has been produced. I have perused the same. There was some sort of proposal and agreement for marri age between the informant and the accused petitioner No.4 AK Faruk Ahmed Mazumd er. As a result of such agreement, as it reveals from the case diary, they lived as husband and wife for one and half months. Thereafter, the informant returned to her parents house. The allegation has been made against the accused husband that there was a demand for dowry from the parents of the informant and as the s aid dowry demand could not be met, she has to live separately from her husband. Mr. Biswas submits that the informant and the accused husband never lived togeth er although he admitted that there was an agreement. However no nikanama was sig ned in presence of the Qazi as required under Muslim personal Law. He also submi ts that no demand for dowry either in cash or in kind was made. The accused petitiner No. 1 Ataur Rahman Mazumdar is a retired govt. employee wh ile Petitioner No. 2 is the housewife . The co-accused petitioner No. 3 AB Siddi que Ahmed Mazumdar, son of the accused petitioner No. 1 is working in the privat e company. Similarly accused petitioner no. 4 is also working in a private compa ny. There is no chance of absconding or jumping of bail in case bail is granted to them. In view of the above, interim order dated 11.1.2011 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions that they shall appear in person before the IO within 10 ( ten) days from today.