IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12494 of 2010 1.SHBASH PRASAD 2.Arbind Prasad , both resident of village NarayanpurP.O. Thaway, P.S. Thaway,Dist. Gopalganj…..Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR 2.Asha Devi Opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Advocate. Dr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.N. Pandit, A.P.P. -------- 2 13.5.2010 Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution for offences under sections 498 A, 406, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law of the complainant, whereas petitioner no.2 happens to be her husband. In the complaint petition there is allegation of torture against the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 is alleged to have developed illicit relationship with another lady at Jaipur where he had gone for working. From perusal of the order dated 2.1.2010 passed by learned Session Judge, it appears that complainant as also petitioner no.2 Arbind Prasad were physically present in the court and both of them expressed their willingness to restore their matrimonial relationship forgetting the past history and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, by his aforesaid order dated 2.1.2010 granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners till 28.1.2010. The learned Sessions Judge - 2 - was of the view that the conduct of the petitioners should be kept under watch. As per submission, the provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners was extended by order dated 28.1.2010 till 10.2.2010 and it was further extended on 10.2.2010 till 11.3.2010. Unfortunately on 10.2.2010 some allegations were made by the petitioners against the complainant regarding breaking of box and taking away certain ornaments and then fleeing away from the matrimonial home. However, when the matter was taken up finally on 11.3.2010 no body was present there in the court to press the application filed on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject their prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact on 11.3.2010 petitioners were physically present, but their lawyer could not appear, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order without considering the merit of the case. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is expedient that petitioners are given fresh opportunity to approach the learned Sessions Judge by filing a fresh application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the - 3 - petitioners shall approach the learned Sessions Judge within three weeks from today by filing a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. If such a petition is filed, learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, may secure the attendance of the complainant and may examiner her. Learned Sessions Judge may also examine as to whether petitioners have duly complied the undertakings given by them when the order dated 2.1.2010 was passed and thereafter he may dispose of the petition filed by the petitioners on merit in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present application for grant of anticipatory bail stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated, through fax at the cost of the petitioners. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman