IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16758 of 2011 Prashant Sharma, Son of Prem Kumar Sharma, resident of C/o Prem Kumar Sharma, H.N. Kamalayan, North Mandiri, P.S.-Budha Colony, District-Patna. ………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Annapurna Sharma, Wife of Prashant Sharma, D/o Om Prakash Sharma, resident of Madhopur, D.N. Road, P.S.-Kotwali, Distict-Munger. ----------- 4 30.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Today a supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in the Court on behalf of the petitioner and complainant respectively. Let both the affidavits be kept on record. This case was earlier heard on 1.6.2011 and 28.9.2011. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with a complaint case in which cognizance has been taken and summons have been issued for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 379, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution case is that the complainant was married to the petitioner on 11.7.2008 at Durgapur in West Bengal. A huge amount is said to have been spent in the marriage by the father of the complainant. The petitioner was employed in H.D.F.C. Bank and was posted at Durgapur at the relevant time. Subsequently, the complainant was subjected to cruelty in various ways for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is also alleged 2 that the complainant was subjected to cruelty even at Munger on 10.10.2009. She was taken back to Patna on 11.10.2009. She was forced to write a letter to the officials of Bank stating therein that the key of her locker was lost and thus, its operation be stopped. The accused persons even tried to set her on fire but, somehow or other she could rescue herself. On 11.11.2009 her parents brought her back to Munger and finally on 24.1.2010 when she went to Durgapur, the petitioner did not allow her to enter inside the house. She was abused and driven out. She went to the police station but no case was registered, and, thus, the present complaint was filed on 28.1.2010 in the court of C.J.M., Munger. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly marriage took place on 11.7.2008. Since the date of marriage, the behaviour of complainant was very cruel. She always misbehaved with the petitioner. She was pressurizing the petitioner to take her to Durgapur. When she was requested to stay for sometime at Patna, she created very ugly scene and threatened that if she is not allowed to go to Durgapur, she would commit suicide. The petitioner took her to Durgapur but then she started pressurizing him to get himself transferred from Durgapur to Munger and settle there permanently. The complainant continued to harass the petitioner and his family members in various ways. Being compelled, father of the petitioner lodged an informatory petition before the C.J.M., Patna on 18.5.2009. The petitioner also filed an informatory petition in the court of C.J.M., 3 Patna on 5.3.2010. Seeing no way out, the petitioner filed a matrimonial case, being Matrimonial Case No. 656 of 2009 on 26.10.2009 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna under Section 13 (i) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce. In that case, summons was ordered to be sent on 11.12.2009 and the same was issued on 24.12.2009. It is submitted that the present complaint was filed in retaliation to the aforesaid matrimonial case subsequently on 28.1.2010. It is also submitted that the petitioner is presently posted in HDFC Bank, Boring Road, Patna as Manager (Acquisition). Learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party No. 2 while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail has submitted that the letter as contained in Annexure-8 to the supplementary petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is forged and has not been written or signed by the complainant. He further submits that if anticipatory bail is allowed, the petitioner would not allow the case to proceed. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents which have been appended either in the main petition on in the supplementary petition are all bonafide and genuine. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case specially taking into account the fact that prior to the institution of the present complaint a matrimonial case for divorce was already filed by the petitioner, let the petitioner, namely Prashant Sharma 4 in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/communication of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in connection with Complaint Case No. 90C/2010 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear personally in the court below on three consecutive dates without sufficient reasons after framing of charge in the case, the court below would be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds. Sanjeet (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)