IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19424 of 2011 1. Bijal Rajak 2. Shanti Devi Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2 01.07.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners being the parents of the alleged husband are apprehending their arrest in a complainant case in which cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant was initially married with the cousin nephew of the petitioners. It is claimed by the complainant that subsequently, marriage was performed with the son of the petitioners, which is being denied by the petitioners. It appears from the impugned order that learned Sessions Judge was also declined to interfere on the ground that the Vakalatnama was filed before learned Magistrate on behalf of the petitioners. In view of this Court, the filing of Vakalatnama will not preclude the petitioners in 2 making their prayer for anticipatory bail. Considering the fact that the thrust of accusation is against the alleged husband, let the above named petitioners, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Complaint Case No. 259/2008, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)