IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7761 of 2009 PULKESH KUMAR SINGH @ BABLOO, S/o Kishore Kaushlaindra Prasad Singh Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Anupma Kumari @ Gudiya, D/o Shri Ganesh Sharma. ----------- 2/ 08.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that complainant herself deserted him and left his house on which a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights was filed on behalf of the petitioner. When the complainant came to know about the filing of the case, she filed the complaint, which is concurred by the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the attempt of the Court to insist the parties to reside together was refused by the husband. So, it was only a show piece that restitution was filed. In my view also whatever may be the reason for not keeping the complainant, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights is of no avail, basing which, no liberal view can be given to the petitioner when there is specific allegation on the point of demand and torture caused at petitioner’s hand also, who is none else than husband solely responsible for the act of torture and cruelty. Thus, I find it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)