IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.4594 of 2010 SHAHAZADA son of Md. Fahim Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 15.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 498 (A) and 493/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that the petitioner, on assurance of marrying her, cohabited with her for about five months. Thereafter, when she made a request for marriage, the petitioner refused and stated that if a motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh is given, only then he will marry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been implicated in this case as his father earlier filed Complaint Case bearing No. 2930 of 2009 against complainant’s family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, it is the complainant, who duped his son. The petitioner’s father alleged that the informant did not disclose that she was divorced by her husband on 01.05.2009, as such, without observing mandatory period of Iddat, she solemnized marriage with his son. He further submits that when the aforesaid fact was pointed out to the informant and her family members, the instant case has been instituted. Counsel for the informant submits that on false assurance of marriage, petitioner co-habited with the informant. - 2 - In the First Information Report, it is alleged that the petitioner co-habited with the informant and still did not marry her. The defence of the petitioner could be prolonged for a regular bail and so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, I do not think that it is a fit case for anticipatory bail, and as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)