IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52912 of 2007 RATNESH KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8. 1.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant ( opposite party No.2) and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in a case under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation in the first information report is that within 3-4 months of the marriage, which took place on 21.5.2005, the petitioner, who is the husband of the informant, and other members of his family started demanding Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash and a motor- cycle and on non-fulfilment of the said demand, she was being tortured in various ways. Ultimately, the informant was driven out from the house on 15.5.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the first information report are of general nature and against the members of the petitioner’ s family and there is no specific allegation against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed an informatory petition against the informant before the C.J.M., Patna on 26.3.2007 on account of the bad conduct of the informant and, thereafter, he had also filed a divorce petition being Matrimonial Case No. 157/2007 on 5.4.2007. It is submitted that the first information report was 2 lodged on 15.5.2007 as a counter blast to the divorce case filed by the petitioner. The petitioner denies all the allegations made in the first information report and states that it is the informant, who has deserted him. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner and his family members had tortured the informant in various ways in order to extract an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a motor-cycle from her family and on the same not being given, she has been thrown out from the house. It is the informant, who all the times is willing to live with the petitioner and she has personally appeared before this Court and expressed her said intention and initially the petitioner also stated that he would keep her, but thereafter started making all sorts of excuses so as to not take her with him and ultimately stated before this Court that he would keep the informant with him only after he gets a job on completion of so called M.B.A. course. It is submitted that the petitioner is a man of 34 years and the story regarding doing his M.B.A. and other matters have only been put forward so as to take the false plea in the present matter. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the informant that if the petitioner had any intention of keeping her, he should have stood by his word that was given in this Court. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner had earlier stated that he would keep the informant with him with due respect 3 but subsequently resiled from the same, this Court does not consider it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)