IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30580 of 2010 REHANA KHATOON Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 03/ 16th March 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 16th April 2010 contained in Annexure-1 whereby Respondent No.2, Md. Firoz who is husband of the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the Complaint Case lodged by the petitioner for offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that anticipatory bail should be cancelled because the Respondent No.2 wrongly submitted that he had filed a suit for divorce after making efforts to persuade the complainant to live with him. According to the petitioner the husband had not made efforts to persuade her and such averment in the Divorce Suit and such submission before this Court was incorrect. A perusal of the order contained in Annexure-1 shows that the main ground for granting relief to the Respondent No.2 was the fact that suit for divorce was 2 filed on 22.09.2008 and the Complaint Case was filed much later on 02.02.2009. It would not be prudent for this Court to accept the contention that Divorce Suit was filed by the husband without making efforts to persuade the wife to live with him. On the basis of submissions noticed above, it is not deemed proper to cancel the bail granted to Respondent No.2. This application for cancellation of bail is dismissed. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is willing to live with the husband and if she has taken such stand in the divorce proceeding, the same shall be considered by the concerned court in accordance with law. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)