IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52329 of 2007 MD.HUSSAIN @ MUNNA, son of Md.Shoaid, resident of village Saidpur, P.S.Matihani, Dist. Begusarai-----------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Tarannum Begum, D/o Md.Safi Ahmad, resident of Kalichak Chhapki, P.S.Barauni(Bilpur), Dist. Begusarai. ----------- 8. 4.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no.2 and learned Additional P.P. for the State. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in a Complaint case in which cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage had taken place as far back as in the year 1992 and during the marriage four children were born. It is submitted that the case of demand of dowry appears to be highly impleasible in view of the long period that has elapsed since the date of the marriage. It is further submitted that only on account of minor domestic quarrel and the reason best known to the complainant 2 she does not want to live with the petitioner and has filed the criminal case against him. It is urged that the petitioner has done all that he could including giving up his job in Saudia Arabia in order to live with the complainant but all has been of no avail. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as many as nine persons were named accused in the complaint petition but the court below issued summons only against five of them and all other four accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by order dated 2.5.2007 of the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submits that there is no reason why the complainant would falsely implicate the petitioner since she has four children from the marriage and there has no where else to go. It is further submitted that it is the petitioner who has failed to discharge the obligation towards the complainant. Learned counsel also submits that only on account of non-fulfilment of the assurances given by the petitioner that 3 conciliation could not take place between the parties. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner Md.Hussain @ Munna, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in connection with Complaint case no. 2296C of 2006 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/