IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.600 of 2010 VIMAL PRASAD SINGH, son of Tuka lal Singh, resident of village- Faridpur, P.S.-Raja Pakar, District-Vaishali .. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kavita Kumari,Daughter of Parikshan Singh,resident of village-Raja Pakar(Kushwaha Tola),P.S.- Raja Pakar, District-Vaishali.. Opp.Parties ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Anuradha Singh & Mukesh Kr.Singh,Advocates For the Informant : Mr. Bishwajeet Singh,Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Addl.P.P. ------------- 04/ 19-05-2010 Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution for the offences under Sections 498A, 379 and some other allied offences of the Indian Penal Code, petitioner is the husband of the informant. Unfortunately, just after two months of the marriage, the present FIR vide Annexure-1 was lodged by the informant. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioner, who, being the husband of the informant, was solely responsible for the well being of his wife. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, though has denied the entire prosecution allegation, but has clearly stated that there is absolutely no possibility of restoration of matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and opposite party no.2. Learned counsels for the informant and the State have strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and they have fully supported the prosecution allegations. Be that as it may, in view of the serious nature of 2 allegation and in view of the fact that there is no possibility of restoration of matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and opposite party no.2, the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. He must surrender in the court below in connection with Rajapakar P.S.Case No.124 of 2009 within a period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. AH/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)