IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35989 of 2008 GOPAL KUMAR SAH @ GOPAL SAH Son of Late Sukhdeo Sah, resident of Mohalla Basudeopur (in front of I.T.C. Park) P.S.- Kotwali District- Munger Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 20.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is of demand of dowry and torture. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations levelled are false since the complainant herself is not living in the matrimonial house and for that the petitioner has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights which was allowed in his favour since the complainant did not appear in that case. It is further submitted that he had also filed an application before the Mahila Koshang and a report was submitted by the Kotwali police station to the effect that the allegations levelled in the complaint are not true. It is further contended that while the application for grant of bail of his elder brother namely, Banshi Sah in this very case was under consideration, the complainant appeared - 2 - and initially she agreed to live with the petitioner, however later on she said that she does not rely on the undertaking of the petitioner of that case and the petitioner of this case. It is also submitted that the allegations made in the complaint is not corroborated in the solemn affirmation or during the enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that so far as the differences between the complainant and the petitioner is concerned that may be a subject matter of a difference proceeding, but as regards the application for anticipatory bail, in view of the specific allegation against the petitioner, he is not entitled to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him the privilege of anticipatory bail. His prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)