NASREEN PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and the APP representing the State. Despite service of notice and filing of Vakalatnama on 18. 1. 2008 for the opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, no one has appeared today on their behalf. Earlier also, when the case was taken up on 13. 3. 2008, counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 had taken time.

(2.) THIS is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 by an order, dated 11. 5. 2007 in a. B. P. No. 2789 of 2007 whereby and where-under the Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to them. The present application was filed on 9. 10. 2007 and this Court by an order, dated 21. 11. 2007had issued notice to them. As noted above, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 had also been served notice and had filed Vakalatnama on 18. 1. 2008 but none has chosen to appear on their behalf and, therefore, this application is being disposed of after hearing Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(3.) MR. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-informant submits that the allegations against the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 were serious in nature pertaining to offences under Sections 498a, 323 and 307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. His emphasis is that the Court below, the Sessions judge, Patna while granting anticipatory bail to the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 by an order dated 11. 5. 2007 in A. B. P. No. 2789 of 2007 had granted blanket anticipatory bail without putting any restriction on the opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Sinha in this context had invited the attention of this court towards the order dated 11. 5. 2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patna in a. B. P. No. 2789/2007 whereby and where-under the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 were granted anticipatory bail. The said order is being quoted hereinbelow: