IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8106 of 2009 AMIT KUMAR SINHA @ AMIT KUMAR @ RINKU Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2 9.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Complainant. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no allegation of demand on behalf of the petitioner and if it is there that is general and omnibus and against all in-laws basing which taking into consideration, rest of the family members have been allowed anticipatory bail, so the petitioner is also entitled for the same but that is opposed on behalf of counsel for the complainant on the ground that the petitioner is the husband, solely responsible for the affairs of happening or torture or otherwise. The petitioner was leading the family members in his capacity of the husband for causing torture which is specifically mentioned in the complaint petition even ousted after beating for the second time, filed Sanha , divorce case with frivolous allegation, further leading to another torture and seeking relief for bail in anticipation of his arrest which in no case can be accepted. I agree with the submission advanced on behalf of counsel for the complainant. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI