IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1847 of 2010 1. Hamid Akhtar Khan, Son of Late Ajeez Khan. 2. Arshad Khan, Son of Hamid Akhtar. Both resident of Mohalla Katra, Police Station Bihar not Laheri, District Nalanda. 3. Hamid Hussain Khan, Son of Late Abdul Samad Khan, Resident of Mohalla Kashi Takiya, Police Station Laheri, District Nalanda. ------ Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar ----- Opposite Party ----------- 2 23.2.2010 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rashid Izhar, learned counsel for the informant. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail for an offence under Section 406/402/34 of the Indian Penal Code by taking a plea that they have been unnecessarily subjected to a false prosecution only because the daughter of the petitioner no.1 had filed an earlier case on 7.1.2008 for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the informant of the present case. It has also been submitted that the petitioner no.1 is a practicing doctor in Sasaram and would not even otherwise be concerned with the money which was allegedly transferred by the informant in the name of her wife, the daughter of the petitioner no.1. It is, therefore, submitted that the subsequent case i.e. the present case 2 filed on 24.6.2009 is only an aftermath or a counter blast for the earlier case filed by the daughter of the petitioner no.1 which would definitely bring this case to the category of a false case and hence, the petitioners would be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Mr. Rashid Izhar, on the other hand has submitted that actually the informant had filed earlier case for restitution of conjugal right being Matrimonial Case No. 157 of 2007 and therefore, no much credit can be given to the subsequent criminal case filed by the wife of the informant for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He would also proceed that there is unimpeachable evidence to show that whatever money was transferred by the informant from Saudi Arebia was somehow miss-utilized by the petitioners by taking his wife into collusion. In this connection, he himself has placed reliance on an agreement dated 18.10.2009 which of course is subsequent to filing of the case for restitution as also the complaint case filed by the wife of the informant on 7.1.2008 and the present case on 3 24.6.2009. In this agreement dated 18.10.2009, the parties have almost now concluded that there would be severance of the relationship between the daughter of the petitioner no.1 with the wife of informant and now only the child out of their wedlock would live with the wife of the informant. Further, an adjustment has also been made with regard to settlement of land and ornaments which would not be of much relevance in the given context of the present case. It is only with regard to the cash balance that the parties have agreed to the following terms and conditions:- ^^2- :i;k ds eksfrd r; dh gqbZ ckr%& tks Hkh lc ogtkn 'kdhy viuh iRuh nqj[ky izohu dks fn;k Fkk vkt fnukad 18-10-2009 rd tks Hkh l0 lsfoax vkSj fQDl fMiksftV gS oks rgjhe Qkrek oYn ogtkn 'kdhy ds cPpksa ds rgjhu Qkrek mQZ vy 'kek ds uke ij j[kk tk,xkA blds j[kus ds eksrfyd tks elojk ,sekjr 'kjh;k dh gksxh mls nksuks dks ekuuk gksxkA bls nksuks Qjhd us dcwy fd;kA** If this be the ultimate conclusion arrived at after filing of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, nothing would now remain to be adjudicated because even the petitioners have shown their complete dis- concern by disassociating themselves from any 4 money which was deposited in the name of the wife of the informant. It is a different thing altogether that now the relationship between the informant of this case and his wife, the daughter of the petitioner no.1 also does not survive and therefore, this Court would accept the submission of Mr. Ashuthosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 in capacity of the father of the wife of the informant would see to it that whatever money was in the name of his daughter, the wife of the informant, would remain in her name and if any transfer was inadvertently made in the name of any of the family member of petitioner no.1 or the petitioner no.1 himself that shall be deposited in the account of the daughter of the informant. Once this deck becomes clear, this Court would find that the petitioners deserve grant of anticipatory bail in this peculiar facts and circumstances thereof. That being so, if the petitioners, namely, Hamid Akhtar, Arshad Khan and Hamid Hussain Khan surrender within a period of four weeks from today and give an undertaking to 5 abide by clause no.2 of the agreement dated 18.10.2009 (as quoted above), they would be released 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati at Gaya in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 62 of 2009 (G.R. No. 575 of 2009), subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)