ORDER Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The present case represents a sorry state of affairs notwithstanding the judgment of this Court in 2006 (3) P.L.J.R. 182. The matter such as the present continue to come to the High Court burdening its board of bail matters. There is no discussion in the order as to why notwithstanding the aforesaid judgement the present application came to be rejected. The present appears to be a clear case of refusal to exercise jurisdiction coupled with complete non-application of mind. 3. The allegations are that the informant was married in 1988. Three children were born from the wedlock. Subsequently her husband allegedly remarried. The allegation of assault are non-specific and generalised in omnibus manner. The husband is stated to be in custody since 1.6.2006. Notwithstanding the aforesaid materials and the order of this Court in the case aforesaid the prayer for anticipatory bail of the family members yet came to be rejected noticing that at the root of the dispute was the second wife. This Court finds it difficult to appreciate rejection of the application for anticipatory bail. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considers it proper to direct the petitioners aforenamed, to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, when they shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM Nalanda at Biharsharif in Harnaut PS Case No. 89 of 2006 subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 5. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to all the District Judges of the State for onward circulation.