IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47183 of 2008 AJEET RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 10 5.4.2010 Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case no. 1644 of 2007 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M, (West) Muzaffarpur, in which cognizance has been taken under section 498 A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code as also under sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner is the husband of the complainant and there is specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture against him. He is alleged to have married with another lady, namely, Mamta Kumari, though marriage between the complainant and the petitioner still subsists. This case has a chequered history. When the case was taken up for hearing on 17.2.2009, then on the submission made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner about reconciliation of the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, notices were ordered to be issued to O.P. no.2 and an interim protection was granted to the petitioner. On appearance of O.P. no.2 , on 20.4.2009 when the matter was taken up for hearing then stand was taken by both sides that they had decided to settle the dispute amicably as there is a child aged about 4/5 years, who needs care and protection of the parents. This court granted indulgence permitting them to file an appropriate affidavit in the court below. The interim protection granted to the petitioner was extended by four weeks. On 21.5.2009 case was ordered to be listed after Summer vacation. The matter was again heard by a bench of this Court on 20.8.2009 but by that time no affidavit was filed by the petitioner showing - 2 - about filing of any compromise petition in the court below, as was directed by order dated 20.4.2009. However, on that day petitioner offered of his own that he would deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the name of his daughter and would start depositing Rs. 1000/-. per month in the account to be opened in the name of his wife (O. P. No.2). Matter was again adjourned for four weeks and interim protection was extended. Despite specific order dated 20.8.2009 the petitioner did not comply the said order within the time fixed and instead on the request made on behalf of the petitioner matter was adjourned on 24.11.2009 for two weeks and again on 4.1. 2010 for four weeks. In the aforesaid back ground when the matter was taken up 2.2.2010 a prayer for further adjournment was made on behalf of the petitioner without informing the court about the compliance of previous order dated 20.8.2009. In that back ground a Bench of this Court after noticing the entire facts of the case vacated the interim protection granted to the petitioner and ordered that the matter be listed after one week. Lastly the matter was taken up on 29.3.2010. On that date Mr. Nachiketa Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for adjournment of the case, though he admitted that previous order passed by this Court had not been complied with by the petitioner. Reluctantly this court adjourned the matter to 5th of April 2010 with a clear stipulation that no further adjournment shall be granted in the case and matter shall be heard on merit. Unfortunately when the case has been called out today, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for further adjournment for two weeks. He also informed the court that till date previous order passed by a Bench of this Court on 20.8.2009 has not been copmplied with by the petitioner. In view - 3 - of the back ground set forth above, the court refused to grant any further indulgence for adjourning the case and instead heard the matter on merit. From the facts stated above and from perusal of the complaint petition Annexure-1 , it is apparent that petitioner is not only the main culprit for committing the crime in question but he has no respect even for the orders passed by this Court. He has deliberately and successfully violated the previous orders passed by a bench of this Court on 20.4.2009 and 20.8.2009. Therefore, he is a desperate person and does not deserve any sympathy from the court. In the facts and circumstances set forth above, prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rjected. The petitioner must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and, if so advised, seek regular bail. If the petitioner does not surrender within the time fixed by this court, then the court below is obliged to take all coercive steps for ensuring the apprehension of the petitioner by the police in the present case. Let this order be communicated to the court of S.D.J.M, (West) Muzaffarpur , in the above noted case forthwith. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman