IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24139 of 2008 ------- URMILA DEVI & ORS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 14.7.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.945/04 for the offences registered under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, it appears that there is no specific allegation against petitioners no.1 to 4. The allegation whatsoever is against petitioner no.5, who is the husband of the complainant. Moreover, it is submitted that the present case has been instituted against these petitioners for ulterior purposes after lapse of about 11 years of marriage. Considering the submissions, as noticed above, and on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, it is directed that petitioner no.1 Urmila Devi, petitioner no.2 Katki Ray, petitioner no.3 Bhinsari Devi and petitioner no.4 Muso Ray, in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with Complaint Case No.945/04 within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of B.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistarate, Ist Class, Banka, in connection with the 2 aforesaid case, on the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the allegations made in the complaint attributed against petitioner no.5 Shiv Narain Ray, I am not inclined to grant bail to him. The application as against petitioner no.5 is, accordingly rejected. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)