IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38926 of 2010 HARI KISHUN MAHTO, S/o Shukhdeo Mahato, R/o Village- Khutauana Baluaha, P.S.- Khutauna, District- Madhubani ............. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ratna Devi, W/o Hari Kishun Mahto, At present Village-Marukia, P.S.- Andhratharhi, District- Madhubani .................. Opposite Parties ----------- 3 26.03.2011 Heard Sri Uma Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hriday Narayan Harshit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2/complainant and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who is husband of Opposite Party No.2, apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 467 of 2009, filed under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 494, 379 & 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. There is specific allegation in the complaint petition against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Annexure-2 to the petition, which is purported to be an affidavit sworn by the Opposite Party No.2, submits that even the Opposite Party No.2, had disowned the petitioner as her husband, and as such, it is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted that petitioner has also solemnized second marriage besides committing other offences. After perusing the materials available on record, the court 2 is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. Petition stands dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the court below within one month from today. If the petitioner files a petition for regular bail before the court below, the learned court below, without being prejudiced with rejection of this petition will examine the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)