said that it will not. As regards part (b) in the Explanation, explaining the word “cruelty” is concerned, it prescribes that the harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Here, in this case, it is alleged that she was asked to bring amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. But, that ground was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for rejection of the bail application of the present applicant. Further, as per the First Information Report that amount was demanded by the co-accused persons also; yet, those co-accused have been granted bail by the concerned Court. How the segregation of the acts has been done, is not made clear. Merely because the applicant is the husband of the informant, taking into consideration the allegations, it cannot be said that he will not be entitled to get the anticipatory bail, but the co-accused, against whom similar allegations are made, would be entitled to the bail. No doubt, this Court is not sitting in appeal as against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but time and again, this Court has observed that if proper criteria are adopted by the learned Sessions Judges as well as Additional Sessions Judges and the rejection of the bail is not mechanical, then, it would reduce the burden of this Court.
