IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20379 of 2009 AVINASH SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. None has appeared for the wife who had entered appearance, as may appear from the order dated 31.8.2009. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was married to the informant and it also does not appear denied that the two were living in Delhi. This fact is abundantly clear from one of the annexures to the counter affidavit filed by the wife in the form of F.I.R. which appears at page 66 of the present brief. This fact also appears stated in the written report of the informant that she and her family had filed a case of kidnapping on account of disappearance of the petitioner from Patna all on a sudden. Coming to the allegation, it is alleged that the petitioner and his family members had obtained dowry in the form of a bank draft which fact also appears mentioned 2 in the rejection order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patna. The allegation further is that the petitioner and his family members pestered the informant and her family members for more dowry in the form of money and tortured her. Lastly when the informant was coming back to Patna on account of some marriage which took place in her parents house she was again commanded by the petitioner and his family members to come back with money, else, she would not be allowed to enter into the household. The informant, though has not appeared during the course of hearing of the petition, has filed a number of annexure including a petition filed by the petitioner for dissolution of his marriage to the informant. It does not appear as to when this petition for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband petitioner but the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned in his rejection order and that appears borne out from the record also that on account of non- fulfilment of the dowry the lady was 3 regularly ill-treated and tortured. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jhaa, J.)