IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33750 of 2009 Rokhsana Khatoon wife of Md. Akbar Ali, daughter of Md. Naimuddin resident of village- Saraiya Bazar Police Station- Dewriya, District- Muzaffarpur. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Md. Bazir @ Wazir son of late Ismail Miyan 3. Md. Aslam Ali son of Md. Wazir. 4. Md. Amjad Ali son of Md. Wazir. All resident of village- Ahibaran Chhapra, Police Station- Rajepur, District- East Champaran, At present – 68, Bellilious Road, 2nd Floor, P. S. Howrah, District- Howrah, West Bengal. … Opposite Parties. ------ For the petitioner :Mr.Zeyaul Hoda, Adv. For the State :Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP. ----------- 3. 14.11.2011 The complainant- petitioner has preferred this application against the order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in A.B.P. No. 834 of 2008 by which the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been granted anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 1823/2007, Trial No. 1722/2008. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed A.B.P. No. 834 of 2008 stating therein in paragraph 13 that an order of divorce has been passed by the Court of Shahi Imam, Tipu Sultan Shahi Mahzid, Kolkata by ex parte order dated 23.1.2008 which 2 is an incorrect statement. He has further submitted that after obtaining the anticipatory bail the opposite parties are threatening the petitioner and also force her to compromise the case. It has further been submitted that a petition to this effect has also been filed in the Court of learned SDJM on 14.8.2008 but no order has been passed by the learned SDJM. Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner may raise her grievance before the learned trial court and he has also submitted that the anticipatory bail was granted by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 30.7.2008. More than three years have passed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise her grievance before the learned trial Court where the complaint case is pending for trial. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the State is correct. The petitioner is at liberty to raise her grievance before the learned trial court who will pass order after considering the petition, if any, filed by the petitioner. 3 With the aforesaid observation, this application stands disposed of. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)