IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17122 of 2010 PURNAWASHI RAM, S/O Ramdas Ram, resident of Bhaluhi Dayaram, P.S. Kateya, District-Gopalganj ------- Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 26-05-2010 Heard Sri Amit Kumar Rakesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Atul Chandra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.426 of 2008, Trial No.2172 of 2009, registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Short fact of the case is that the wife of the petitioner filed a complaint case alleging therein that after the marriage, she was mentally and physically tortured by the family members of her in-laws and, thereafter, she was ousted from the house of her husband due to non-fulfilment of dowry. Sri Amit Kumar Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing this petition, submits that in the entire complaint petition there is nothing against this petitioner. He further submits that allegation was made against mother-in-law and father-in-law , who have been granted bail vide Annexure-2, which is an order dated 1.2.2010 passed in Cr.Misc.No.46627 of 2009. Accordingly, he has submitted that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest or surrender. Sri Atul Chandra, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor 2 appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail , has firstly submitted that grant of anticipatory bail to father-in-law and mother-in-law is no ground for granting anticipatory bail to this petitioner, who is husband of the complainant. While referring to the impugned order, learned counsel for the State submits that even while hearing anticipatory bail of this petitioner, the complainant had appeared before the court below and she submitted that she is ready to go along with her husband i.e. the petitioner, but it was the petitioner, who flatly refused to keep her with him. Accordingly, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the complaint petition, particularly paragraph 3 of the complaint petition, wherein there is specific allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.25, 000/- as also considering the refusal of the petitioner to keep his wife with him, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )