IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38744 of 2009 1. ASHOK KUMAR son of late Janakdeo Prasad Singh, resident of mohalla Hariji Ka Hata, Police Station Nawada Town, Ara, District Bhojpur, and others ….Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR… …OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner: Mr.Amitabh Sohan, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP For the Complainant:Mr. Girish Chandra Sharma, Advocate ----------- 4 05.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the complainant. The petitioner no. 1 is in custody and seeks bail in a case registered under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Earlier, petitioner nos. 2 and 3, namely, Purnima Devi and Abhishek Kumar, respectively, the mother-in- law and the brother-in-law of the complainant, had been granted bail by this Court on 12.11.2009. However, it was observed that the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner no. 1 shall be considered after disposal of the anticipatory bail petition filed by the husband of the complainant, Ashish Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submitted that the husband of the complainant (son of 2 petitioner no. 1) had already been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.03.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40624 of 2009. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 03.10.2009. It is further submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature against the accused persons and now the husband of the complainant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. It is also submitted that effort of conciliation has also failed, as would be apparent from the certified copy of the order dated 26.03.2010, which has been has been produced before the Court for perusal. Let it be kept on the record. Further contention is that a matrimonial suit for dissolution of marriage was filed earlier than the present case. Thereafter the present complaint case was filed and all the accused persons except the husband of the complainant were arrested and sent to jail. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it would be apparent from the order dated 04.02.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40624 of 2009 by a Bench of this Court that effort of conciliation failed only due to the attitude of the husband of the complainant. It is submitted that if the petitioner is also set free, then the 3 complainant would be placed under precarious situation. Learned counsel for the informant produced the copy of the order dated 04.02.2010 passed in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case. Let it be kept on the record. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that effort of the conciliation had already failed before a Bench of this Court, which is apparent from the order dated 4.2.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40624 of 2009, and also since the husband has already been granted anticipatory bail, I direct the abovenamed petitioner no. 1. ASHOK KUMAR, who is father-in-law of the complainant, to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 306 of 2009, Trial No. 3328/09. However, the trial court is directed to take every step for expeditious disposal of the trial. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)