RAM BILASH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant in the former case who has entered appearance suo motu.

(2.) In the former case the complainant was married to the son of the petitioner 20 years ago. The allegations in the complaint are specific against the husband only. The allegations against the present petitioner is that he hates the complainant and that he allegedly instigated the husband of the complainant to assault the complainant. The complaint does not state anything further against the present petitioner. The Court below by a common order has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the husband as also the petitioner, the father-in-law. On the ground that there were allegations of Commission of cruelty and breach of trust and that his son had remarried. Even while noticing the statement that the son of the petitioner was still willing to keep the complainant in the matrimonial home with dignity.

(3.) In the latter case, the petitioners are the husband and his family members. The allegations are under Section 498-A and other provisions of the Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court below in para 6 of its order has noticed as follows: