IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23986 of 2008 UMESH PRASAD @ CHHOTU S/O AWADHESH PRASAD R/O VILL- MATHIYAPAR ( TEHTA) P.S. MAKHDUMPUR, DIST. JEHANABAD. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STAET OF BIHAR 2. NITU DEVI D/O RAJENDRA PRASAD W/O UMESH PRASAD R/O VILL. PANCHMAHALLA P.S. JEHANABAD, DIST. JEHANABAD. ----- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Achhaiber Singh APP. For the Opp. Party: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. 09. 04.05.2009 Heard both sides. The sole petitioner, who is husband, has approached this court seeking anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Sections 498A, 494 and 323 of the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per allegation in the complaint, the marriage was solemnized in 2005 whereafter the husband and other inmates of the matrimonial home started torturing her on account of non- fulfillment of demand of dowry in so much so she was turned out from the matrimonial home. It is further alleged in the complaint that when she was ousted from the matrimonial home she had one female child and she was pregnant. Learned counsel for the complainant states before this court that the complainant is still prepared to live with accused (husband) if she is given adequate love, care and protection in the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not agreeable to 2 the said request made on behalf of the complainant. Having regard to the allegations and materials available in support thereof, this court is not satisfied that a case for anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the application seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)