IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17222 of 2010 DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINHA @ DHARMENDRA KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAM BRIKSHA SINGH OF VILLAGE MASHAURAH, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JAWAHAR PARK, NEW DELHI. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 09.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner husband is apprehending his arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence under Sections- 498A, 494 of the Penal Code. It is submitted on his behalf that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on 15.5.1995 whereafter the complainant deserted the petitioner on 22.12.2006 and in the light of the desertion divorce suit was filed at New Delhi on 27.2.2008, in which the complainant was impleaded as opposite party and her address was shown as D/o Suryadeo Singh, R/o C-1134, Jawahar Park, Khanpur, New Delhi. It is also submitted that in spite of service of notice at New Delhi address of the complainant she did not appear to contest the divorce suit, which was ultimately decreed under judgment dated 27.11.2008. The present complaint has been filed after passing of the decree in the aforesaid divorce suit on 23.3.2009 and in appreciation of the fact that the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant has been dissolved he should be admitted to the privilege of bail in the event of arrest. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer. She states that complainant was never taken to New Delhi and 2 the divorce suit indicating the complainant to be the resident of C-1134, Jawahar park, Khanpur, New Delhi is collusive action on the part of the petitioner. It is specifically submitted with reference to the averments made in the complaint that she was ousted from the matrimonial house at Lakhisarai on 14.1.1009 by all the accused persons including the husband petitioner whereafter she is residing at her parental house at Nawada and the address given in the divorce case is wholly collusive action on the part of the petitioner and in appreciation of such stand of the complainant the learned Sessions Judge while considering the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail under order dated 25.3.2010 also recorded finding that Delhi address of the petitioner has been wrongly given in the divorce case. Having heard counsel for the parties as also having perused the complaint petition, I am satisfied that the divorce decree has been obtained after furnishing wrong address of the complainant. In the circumstances, for the purposes of considering the plea for grant of bail in the event of arrest to the petitioner no reliance can be placed on the collusive judgement/decree dated 27.11.2008. Accordingly, I reject this application and direct the petitioner to surrender in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in connection with Complaint Case No.307 of 2009 and apply for regular bail. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)