IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15843 of 2010 1. LALITA DEVI, WIFE OF INDRANATH MISHRA, 2. INDRA NATH MISHRA, SON OF LATE TRILOK NATH MISHRA, 3. RAHUL KR. MISHRA @ RAHUL KUMAR, SON OF INDRA NATH MISHRA, (ALL THE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAJURI, P.S. SIMRI BAKHATYARPUR, DISTRICT SAHARSA) 4. SHANKAR THAKUR, SON OF RAMESHWAR THAKUR, 5. ANIMESH THAKUR @ MOTI THAKUR, SON OF RAMESHWAR THAKUR, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAHALAM, POLICE STATION SALKHUA, DISTRICT SAHARSA. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 25.5.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Five petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Bakhtiyarpur (Balba Hat O.P.) P.S. Case No.335 of 2009, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Bakhtiyarpur (Balba Hat O.P.) P.S. Case No.335 of 2009 was registered after the complaint i.e. Complaint Case No.1713(C) of 2009 was transferred to the police by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa. The complainant/informant is the own sister of petitioner no.2. She had alleged that after death of her husband, she was earlier residing with her two brothers i.e. petitioner no.2 and Daya Nath Mishra. Subsequently,dispute in between petitioner - 2 - no.2 and Daya Nath Mishra arose and thereafter, she started living in the house, which was in the share of Daya Nath Mishra. It was alleged that due to dispute in relation to partition, there were some Panchayat and petitioner no.3, who is the son of petitioner no.2 and petitioner nos.4 and 5 are brother-in-law of petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.1, who is wife of petitioner no.2 created a scene in a Panchayati and thereafter, the accused persons entered in the house of the complainant and forcibly took away house hold articles. On the basis of such allegation, complaint was filed and as per order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the complaint case was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri Promod Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the present complaint was got filed by elder brother of petitioner no.2, who was inimical with petitioner no.2 due to the reason of partition of ancestral - 3 - properties. He submits that earlier petitioner no.1 had also filed a Sanha before the police that she was apprehending their false implication by the complainant and thereafter, the present complaint petition was filed falsely and maliciously. After going through the materials available on record, it appears that dispute in between the parties, who are own family members, was going on and due to that reason, on such allegation present complaint was filed. Since it is the family dispute, it would not be advisable to reject the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioners. In the case, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after registering the case, investigation is going on. In view of the fact that investigation is going on and petitioner no.2 is own brother of the complainant and petitioner no.1 is his wife, petitioner no.3 is son of petitioner no.1 and petitioner nos.4 and 5 are brother-in-law, it is desirable to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer - 4 - N.H./ for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within four weeks from today, the petitioners above named shall be released on bail on their furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Bakhtyarpur (Balba Hat O.P.) P.S. Case No.335 of 2009, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that anticipatory bail is granted only till the submission of the charge sheet. With above observation and direction, the petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)