JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and so also counsel for complainant and perused the material on record. 2. A complaint was filed by complainant Neetu Agrawal on 29th August, 2007 which was sent for investigation u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C.-on which FIR has been registered against petitioner and his family members for offence u/ss. 498-A, 406 & 120-B IPC, on 1st September, 2007. 3. Counsel submits that marriage between petitioner & complainant took place on 20th February, 1996 and they are having two minor children from this wedlock. The complainant without any cause left her matrimonial home on 5th May, 2006 and almost more than a year and three months, thereafter, instant complaint has been filed-on which FIR has been registered against petitioner and their family members. Counsel further submits that even from bare perusal of FIR, which has been reproduced in the bail application, no case u/s. 498-A IPC is made out and there is no cruelty which at all can be attributed to the petitioner as well. The divorce petition is pending before Family Court filed by him u/s. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and other matrimonial disputes are also pending between them. Even after investigation, the Investigating Officer has also submitted a report which supports the case of present petitioner and no recovery is to be made so far as Section 406 PC is concerned. 4. Public prosecutor and so also counsel for complainant jointly submit that she was always ready and willing to go to her matrimonial home and even before this court as well statement was made, which has been recorded in the order sheet of 26th February 2008 that she only wants to go to her matrimonial home and no solution other than one expressed is acceptable to her and petitioner who happens to be her husband was cruel to her since marriage and that was the reason for which she had no option but to leave her matrimonial home in May, 2006. 5. Taking into consideration overall material, case diary, report of Investigating Officer and so also other matrimonial disputes which are pending and without expressing any opinion on merits, this court considers it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused-petitioner (Vijay Agarwal). 6. Accordingly, I allow the bail application of petitioner U/s. 438 Cr.RC. 5. Taking into consideration overall material, case diary, report of Investigating Officer and so also other matrimonial disputes which are pending and without expressing any opinion on merits, this court considers it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused-petitioner (Vijay Agarwal). 6. Accordingly, I allow the bail application of petitioner U/s. 438 Cr.RC. and the SHO/IO of Police Station Madanganj District Ajmer is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner (Vijay Agarwal) in FIR No. 350/07, he shall enlarge him on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction on the following conditions: (i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) He shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer; (iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Bail granted. *******