IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8805 of 2010 AWISHKAR BHATT @ AAVISHKAR BHATT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 18.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is specific allegation of torture for demand of dowry but some facts are admitted to the parties to justify or doubt the allegation or to show the conduct of the parties that they can go to any extent without caring the society or the law. This complainant disappeared from her mother’s house was informed to the police for a kidnapping case, it was registered as Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 884 of 2004. However, parties appeared but in the meantime a case was lodged by petitioner’s father against family members of complainant about committing theft of house hold articles for which an initiative has been taken for initiation of a case for the offence under Section 211 Cr.P.C at the hands of complainant’s family members after dismissal of the complainant. B.N. College saw some ugly scene some of its property was damaged. Reason to go to B.N. College was that petitioner’s father is Head of Physics Department. Complainant’s and petitioner’s family were known to each other. After appearance of the parties petitioner’s father allowed them (petitioner and complainant) to reside to his house and complainant’s mother also developed intimacy. Another development was filing of divorce suit. After disappearance both the complainant and petitioner married each other, now allegedly dowry is being demanded and she 2 is being tortured for its non-fulfillment, marriage of the parties is doubted on the ground that custom of the parties plays role to accept an ceremony to marriage. Ceremonies of the marriage was not accepted by complainant’s mother herself she designed the same kidnapping. It appears that complainant as well as this petitioner has no care of moral values of the society as well as of the law and can go to any extent to make any allegation of their choice. All the allegations made against each other by both the families appears a ground for their prosecution for the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. I refrain myself while deciding this anticipatory bail petition for taking any initiation but in no case allegation leveled by the complainant that also much after filing of petitioner’s matrimonial case No. 395 of 2010 can be taken for refusal of anticipatory bail. In that view of the matter, in the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of communication of this order, the above named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10, 000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patna in connection with complainant Case No. 854© of 2009 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. Prakash/A.F.R ( Mandhata Singh, J)