1 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.985/2008 (Jagdish Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan) DATE OF ORDER : March 24, 2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Niranjan Singh, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashok Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor for State. Mr.M.S.Rajpurohit, for the first informant. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel appearing for the first informant. Perused the order impugned and the police investigation diary. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that since 06.12.1999, the petitioners have been residing separately from the complainant and her husband. It is further contended that in the FIR itself, there is an allegation that some amount was given in the year 2001 for the construction of a house, which has not yet been repaid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if at all any amount has been given, it may be a transaction for the advancement of the amount subject to condition of repayment as stated in the first information report; the first informant claims that the amount has not yet been repaid and therefore, it is not a demand of dowry. It is further 2 contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that husband of the complainant filed an application before the District Judge, Bikaner on 22.8.2007 seeking dissolvement of marriage and, thereafter a complaint has been filed against the husband of the complainant and the petitioners, who are the parents-in-law. Husband of the complainant has been arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a Ration Card dt. 16.1.2002, which shows that petitioners are residing separately and names of complainant and her husband do not find in the list of the members of the family. Be that as it may, husband of the complainant has already been arrested and an application for dissolvement of marriage has already been filed before the District Judge, Bikaner, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioners under section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Jagdish Singh s/o Bheru Singh and Smt. Saria Devi w/o Jagdish Singh in FIR No.11/2008, P.S. Mahila Thana, Bikaner, they shall be released on bail for a period till the police concludes the investigation and files the challan provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the 3 sum of Rs.10,000/- along with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer to surrender and appear before the trial court on the date of filing of the challan after conclusion of the investigation on the following conditions:- (i)That they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii)That they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and; (iii)That they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. The petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on the date of filing of the challan. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-