IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20702 of 2010 1.PRAMOD SINGH 2.Murari Singh, Both are R/O Vill. Katar Mala, P.S. Neemachandpur, Distt. Begusaria…….Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR O.P. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Advocate. For the State: Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, A.P.P. 2 17.06.2010 Heard the parties including learned counsel appearing for the complainant. The petitioners seek bail in an alleged case of misuse of privilege of the bail with respect to offence under section 498 A of the Indian Penal code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner No. 1 happens to be father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 happens to be brother in law (Bhaisur) of the alleged victim, daughter of the complainant. Both the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by order dated 7.9.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47336 of 2006 with a condition that they shall remain physically present on each and every date till examination of four prosecution witnesses by the trial court. Co-accused Tripurari Singh, the husband of the victim, was also one of the petitioners in the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 47336 of 2006 and he was also granted anticipatory bail with similar condition. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 7.9.2007 the petitioners furnished their bail bonds and made pairvi for some time by remaining physically present, but subsequently they filed representation under section 317 Cr.P.C. and were not physically present in the court. However, co-accused Tripurari Singh, the husband of the victim, has been doing pairvi regularly by remaining physically present on each and every date. Since petitioners were not physically present on each and every date, therefore, it has been construed as misuse of privilege of anticipatory bail granted by this court and consequentially their bail bonds were - 2 - cancelled on 17.5.2010 where-after petitioners have surrendered on 25.5.2010. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in future the petitioners shall comply all the terms and condition of this Court as laid down in the aforesaid order dated 7.9.2007 vide Annexure-1 granting them anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail made on behalf of petitioners tooth and nail and has submitted that in fact the petitioners are instrumental in not allowing the husband of the victim to have reconciliation with his wife i.e. daughter of the complainant. Be that as it may, inthe aforesaid facts and circumstances, the above named petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction S.D.J.M, Begusarai in connection with complaint case No. 1820 C/05 , subject to conditions: (a) That one of the bailors must be Govt. servant or close family member of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner. (b) The petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman - 3 -