IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37227 of 2009 MINTU PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR 3 15.3.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint case in which cognizance has been taken under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the D.P.Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though he is the husband of the complainant but there is general omnibus allegation against all the accused persons regarding demand of dowry and torture. It is submitted that the petitioner is always prepared to keep the complainant in his house as his legally wedded wife with all dignity and honour and in that view of the matter notice was issued to the complainant by a Bench of this Hon’ble Court by order dated 1.12.2009 and despite service of notice O.P.No.2 has chosen not to appear in this matter for opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to paragraph 5 of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, to demonstrate that the complainant had appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya but she flatly refused to live with the petitioner as his wife. It is also submitted that due to recalcitrant approach of the complainant there is 2 no chance of compromise between the parties. Be that as it may, in the circumstances, let the petitioner abovenamed, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks from today be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Complaint Case No.331/07 subject to the condition laid down under section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. AnilKr.Sinha (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)