IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8051 of 2010 MUNENDRA KUMAR BHARTI @ MUNEDRA KUMAR BHARTIYA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 12.4.2010 Heard the parties. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with complaint case No. 53 (C) /2009 in which cognizance has been taken under sections 323, 498A of the Indian penal Code and ¾ Dowry prohibition Act. According to the prosecution case petitioner is the husband of the complainant Sunita Kumari, who is being represented by her lawyer. According to the prosecution case the allegation of demand of dowry and torture is against the husband. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was minor, when the marriage is said to have taken place. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Session Judge, it appears that the petitioner and the complainant were physically present in the court. The complainant expressed her willingness to live with the petitioner as his legally wedded wife, but the petitioner refused to have the restoration of his matrimonial relationship with the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant/informant disputed the claim of the petitioner about his minority and highlighted about the conduct of the petitioner with respect to the commission of crime in question. In the aforesaid back ground, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. Petitioner must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and, if so advised seek regular bail. If such a petition is filed, then the same may be disposed - 2 - of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. It will be open to the petitioner to raise the plea of minority, and if such a plea is raised, then the court below shall be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman