AB 1273/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL Heard Sri B K Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B B Gog oi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Also heard Sri P Bora, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the informant, objecting the bai l, prayer. I have also perused the FIR, counter FIR and other documents fil ed with the Anticipatory Bail Application as well as the Case Diary. This application U/S 438 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Vishal Jain, praying for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest i n connection with Dibrugarh PS Case No. 312 of 2011 under Sections 498 (A)/ 34 o f the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 4 of the DP Act. Sri Bora, learned counsel for the informant has raised a prelimi nary objection about the maintainability of the bail application. According to S ri Bora, during the pendency of the bail application in the Court of learned Ses sions Judge, Dibrugarh, the present application was filed suppressing the afores aid fact and on this ground only, the bail prayer should be rejected. In this re gard, Sri Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail ap plication was filed in the Sessions Court on 06.05.2011 and on that day, no reli ef was given to the petitioner and his family members. Sri Mahajan also submitte d that thereafter, the situation was hostile at Dibrugarh and there was a news i tem in the television that warrants have been issued against the accused persons . Hence, the petitioner came down to Guwahati and informed the learned counsel t hat his bail prayer has been rejected at Dibrugarh. Under such circumstances, th e bail application was filed on 09.05.2011. Sri Mahajan further submitted that o nly on the next day, the bail application was still pending at Dibrugarh and as such, this Bail Application was not moved on 11.05.2011. In other words, the Bai l Application was moved on 13.05.2011, i.e., only after rejection of the bail pr ayer at Dibrugarh. In addition to this submission, the learned counsel has also contended that a statement has been made by the petitioner in the application ab out filing of the bail application at Dibrugarh. It is true that there should have been a categorical averment th at the bail application was dismissed but instead of such declaration, the petit ioner stated that the bail application was not considered favourably by the lear ned Sessions Judge. Be that as it may, since the present application was moved o nly after rejection of the bail prayer by the learned Sessions Judge, I condone the mistake committed by the petitioner. On the merit of the case, it appears to me that the accused/ pet itioner married the informant by way of registration of the marriage under the p rovisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 at Kolkata. Apparently, both the boy (ac cused) and the girl are residents of Dibrugarh, but at the relevant time, they w ere studying at Kolkata and having acquainted from before they got their marriag e registered. However, from the document dated 29.08.2010, annexed with the Anti cipatory Bail Application, it appears to me that despite the registration of the marriage, the parties did not live together as husband and wife since there was no social marriage. Besides this, the uncle of the petitioner has also lodged a counter FIR against the father of the prosecutrix and the said FIR was lodged o n 18.04.2011, but the present FIR was lodged only on 02.05.2011. Not only that, the petitioner has also filed a matrimonial suit to declare the marriage as null and void and the said suit was filed before 1 (one) week, i.e., prior to the fi ling of the FIR. The above apart, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor admitt ed that there is no allegation of physical torture upon the informant nor any in dependent witness has supported the allegation of demand of money. Having regard to all these aspects, I am of the view that it is not a case, where custodial i nterrogation of the accused may be required. Hence, the bail prayer is accepted. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer is directed to release th e petitioner aforesaid, in connection with the aforesaid PS Case, on bail, on hi s furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20, 000/-, with one surety of the like amount subj ect to his satisfaction. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer wit hin a period 1 (one) week from today and he shall co-operate in the investigatio n of the case. With the aforesaid directions, this Anticipatory Bail Applicatio n stands disposed of.