IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29074 of 2008 RAM SUDIST YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 14.08.2008 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the state. Petitioner is husband of the informant. The offence alleged is u/Ss 498A, 379 & 323 of the IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. This case was instituted after seven years of the marriage. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation of torture and demand of dowry is not correct. The petitioner resides at Delhi to earn his livelihood and the informant lives sometimes at her parent’s house and sometimes at her matrimonial home. She has suspicion that the petitioner might hnave solemnized the second marriage. This suspicion is not correct but this is the reason for institution of the case. Considering these facts prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner, Ram Sudist Yadav is allowed. In the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, he will be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection - 2 - with Benipatti P.S. Case No. 186/08 to the satisfaction of CJM, Madhubani subject to the conditions as laid down u/S 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner will take his wife to the place where he resides and will provide her all facilities which is within the means of the petitioner. He will not torture or abuse the informant. In case these conditions are not fulfilled, the informant will have liberty to move for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra,J.)