IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32948 of 2010 MD. AFJAL, son of Md. Rasul, resident of village Bewari, Pipra Latif, P.O. Mohadipur, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 12.10.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as also taking into account that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier remitted by an order of this Court dated 23.2.2010 in Cr.Misc.No. 1977/2010 after recording the following submissions on behalf of the petitioner: “The petitioner, husband, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an offence under section 498 A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would submit that it is an error of record in the order of the Sessions Judge that any effort for reconciliation was made prior to rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. This Court, however, would find that the court below has drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner by accepting the submission of the Public prosecutor In-charge that if the petitioner had a bonafide intention to resolve the dispute with his wife he could have actively participated in the reconciliation proceedings. Counsel, however, is quite emphatic that no such reconciliation was ever resorted to before the Sessions Judge, Khagaria. In that view of the matter, this court would direct the 2 petitioner to file a fresh application anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, who would not take up the exercise of reconciliation by issuing notice to the complainant Baby Khatoon and in the event the court below would find that the bonafide of the petitioner is questionable on account of not undertaking to keep his wife, the complainant, with all due dignity it would record the failure of reconciliation and reject the prayer for anticipatory bail. On the other hand, if both the parties agree and the girl complainant is prepared to live with the petitioner he would be granted anticipatory bail on any reasonable terms and conditions.” Pursuant thereto when the Sessions Judge had taken up the reconciliation proceeding he has recorded the following facts: “As per direction of the Hon’ble Court both the parties were noticed and they both appeared on 15.06.10 and reconciliation effort was taken up and since thereafter I have on Earned leave. After my joining next date was fixed for 19.06.10. On that date both the parties were absent and accordingly it was directed to get the order sheet seen to the conducting advocate. On subsequent date that means to say on 24.07.10 the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that he is not interested to proceed with reconciliation effort even though there happens to be an order of the Hon’ble Court, therefore, his prayer be disposed of.” 3 It would thus become clear that it was a mere pretence on the part of the petitioner to get his prayer for anticipatory bail reconsidered by the court below, though the fact remains that he never intended to go for such reconciliation as is now clear from the order of the District and Sessions Judge. That being so, when there was direct allegation against the petitioner in the complaint petition, this Court would not find any reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/