AB 437/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K. MERUNO Heard Mr. A. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P. Assam. The petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1499 /2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2589/2010 u/s. 498(A) IPC is praying for p re-arrest bail. Learned Addl. P.P. produced the C.D. today. I have perused the C.D. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Annexure-2 of the petition whi ch is a copy of the order dated 14.9.2010, 12.10.2010 and 25.11.2010 pertaining to divorce proceeding registered as DTS Case No. 19/2010. The next date fixed in this case proceeding is 13.01.2011. What transpires from the FIR is that when t he complainant received the notice of divorce she got into mental injury. The le arned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is evident from the FIR that af ter receipt of the divorce notice complainant has preferred this FIR in order to harass the petitioner and to put him in mental agony. Therefore he prays that h e may be enlarged on pre-arrest bail. Having heard the counsel of the parties and on perusal of the C.D. and the mater ials available on record, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit ca se for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. In the result, the pre-arrest bail application is rejected.