IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16928 of 2010 1.GANESH CHOUHAN son of late Somar Chauhan 2.Mahesh Chouhan son of Sri Ganesh Chouhan Both are resident of village-Nawada, P.S.-Dadkhora, Dist.-Katihar ……Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2. Nandlal Chouhan S/o Sri Raghubir Praasd Chouhan, R/v.-Dalan, P.S.-Mufasil, Dist.-Katihar ……. …..Opp.Party ----------- 2. 25.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the complainant as opposite party no.2. Two petitioners apprehending their arrest in Complaint Case No.1547 of 2008 registered for the offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, filed the aforesaid complaint petition alleging therein that marriage of his daughter, namely, Chandni Devi was solemnized with petitioner no.2 on 23.6.2006. Subsequently, in the year 2007 Bidagri had taken place. It was further alleged that in 2008 while marriage of second son of petitioner no.1 was going to solemnized, the petitioner no.1, who is father of petitioner no.2 started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of demand the daughter of the complainant was tortured mentally and physically and on this ground the complaint petition was filed. Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while pressing this petition, submits that the complaint petition was filed falsely and maliciously and that too only with an object to keep his daughter with him. Learned counsel has also referred to annexure-2 to the petition, which is 2 informatory petition i.e. Sanha No.667 of 2007 which was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. In the said petition it was disclosed by petitioner no.1 that the complainant was regularly insisting to keep his daughter-in-law with him. Learned counsel further submits that the daughter-in-law of petitioner no.1, who is wife of petitioner no.2 has never made any complaint regarding demand of dowry or torture. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that due to ill relation in between the complainant and petitioner no.1 the present complaint was falsely filed. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly in absence of allegation made by daughter-in-law of petitioner no.1 and wife of petitioner no.2, this court is inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, the above named petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Complaint Case No.1547 of 2008 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)