The court emphasized the discretion of the court in imposing conditions for anticipatory bail and the need to consider all attendant facts before making a decision.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE present petition, under Section 482, Cr. PC is preferred against an order of the Learned Addl. Dist. Judge (hereafter "the trial court") dated 09. 05. 2005 whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the Respondent No. 2 (hereafter referred to as the daughter in law ).

( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary to decide this present petition are that the respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint against her mother in law (the petitioner in the present case), the father in law and her husband under Section 498-A/406 IPC. She alleged in the complaint that she was harassed and tortured for dowry and was allegedly thrown out of her matrimonial house.

( 3 ) IT is alleged by the Petitioner that since the inception of marriage the complainant had demanded a separate residence. The couple moved into a separate rented accommodation at Naraina in the year 2003. At the time of leaving the matrimonial house, the complainant/ Respondent No. 2 took all her articles and jewelery with her. The remaining articles such as furniture, utensils, etc. were all shifted to Naraina Vihar. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 moved out of her matrimonial home and is now living with her parents. Two sons were born out of the wedlock. The Petitioner submitted that the Stridhan is with her son. e. the husband of Respondent No. 2 and the Learned asj directed the applicant/petitioner to return all the dowry articles. The petitioner submitted that the Respondent No. 2 picked up a quarrel with them and did not take the articles in spite of their being offered to her.

( 4 ) THE Petitioner further alleges and submits that her husband was released on anticipatory bail. She was granted anticipatory bail on 09. 05. 2005 with a condition that she had to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of a bank draft in the name of the complainant. " The extracts of the order dated 09. 05. 2005 are as follows;

"it is directed that whatever goods are with the accused/applicant"s son should be deposited by them with the. O. in the presence of the complainant. It is directed that she will deposit with the. O. a bank draft of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the complainant within one week"

( 5 ) IT was submitted that the petitioner's son has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1. 25 Lakhs in favour and the name of the complainant, which was a condition to the grant of his anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has filed a list of household articles that were returned to the Respondent No. 2 and a list of stridhan articles, which was being held back by the husband of Respondent No. 2. It was urged that the petitioner had suggested to her son to return the articles but Respondent No. 2 picked up a quarrel and did not receive them.

( 6 ) THE Respondent No. 2 appeared and contested the proceeding. She is presently residing with her parents along with her 2 school going sons. Her husband, the second Respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as a without prejudice amount. She claimed that the husband is an employed and is earning well, in excess of Rs. 25,000 per month; yet he is reluctant to pay for the maintenance of his minor children. They are looked after by the Respondent No. 2 alone, who is a working woman. The complainant respondent alleged that the dowry articles were not returned to her; neither was the condition for the petitioner"s bail fulfilled. She stated that though the condition for payment of Rs. 50,000/- to her could not be insisted, at this stage, and though she she is earning, the educational expenses of the two children alone work out to over rs. 8,000/- per month, which should be borne by the husband.

( 7 ) THE facts show that the petitioner's grievance is limited to the condition imposed, for payment of Rs. 50,000/- as a condition for grant of bail to her, by the trial court. The respondent complainant (wife) and the husband, who also appeared in the court pursuant to directions, are both working, and e