IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21145 of 2009 SAUKAT ALI Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 27.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though there is allegation of demand and causing of cruelty for its non-fulfillment, but for the above grievance, complaint case no. 5 of 2005 was filed in which compromise petition has been filed. Thereafter, there cannot be probability to again make the demand otherwise differences are possible. According to the learned counsel, what developed is that the complainant sought divorce from the petitioner which he accepted and divorced her before a Maulvi. A case has also been filed on behalf of her for maintenance and to have maximum maintenance amount this case is lodged. It is apparent that in maintenance case, maintenance of a female child is also sought, while in this complaint, she has been shown dead. In my view, also the allegation does not justify the refusal of anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in connection with Complaint Case No. 117 of 2009 corresponding to Tr. No. 1905 of 2009, above named petitioner shall be released on 2 bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., West, Muzaffarpur subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. shail (Mandhata Singh,J.)