IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32463 of 2009 1. GANESHI CHAUDHARY 2. SUNITA DEVI 3. BARTI DEVI 4. CHHATAR CHAUDHARY 5. SUNITA DEVI 6. MANOJ CHAUDHARY------PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2 6.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners are father-in-law, brother-in- law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant. They have been named as accused for offences under Sections 494, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioners’ counsel submits that initially charge-sheet was submitted only under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, as such prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected as not maintainable. Subsequently when charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code no summons were issued to the petitioners, as such they did not prefer anticipatory bail. Now warrant of arrest has been issued against them, as such prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected. Considering these facts, prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioners above 2 named is allowed. Let the petitioners surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, when they shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawada in connection with G.R. No. 256 of 2004 arising out of Sirdala P.S. case No. 20 of 2004 (Complaint case No. C87 of 2004), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar