IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19700 of 2010 SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04 27.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant. Petitioner is husband and there is allegation against him that he along with his other family members demanded rupees five lacs to start a business and when the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, he as well as his other family members started torturing the informant in both ways mentally and physically. It would appear from the record that at the instance of the petitioner a notice was issued to the informant for reconciliation but today the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not ready to keep the informant with him. On the other hand learned counsel for the informant submitted that the informant is still ready to lead her conjugal life with the petitioner. Although prior to the lodging of the instant case, the petitioner had filed a divorce case against the informant but in my view the aforesaid fact is not sufficient to give the benefit of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, particularly, keeping in mind the allegation levelled against the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, this anticipatory bail stands rejected. 2 However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Sitamarhi P.S.Case no. 121 of 2009 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and seek regular bail. It is made clear that if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail before the court below, the learned court below shall consider the aforesaid regular bail application on its own merit, particularly, keeping in mind that prior to filing of the instant criminal case, the petitioner had already filed a divorce suit against the informant and also explore the possibility of reconciliation. Shahid/Shahzad (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)