IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32945 of 2009 RAJENDRA KUMAR SAO, son of Sri Sitaram Prasad, resident of village Dayalpur, P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 1.4.2010 Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the complainant as also the State. It was an assurance given by Mr. Anjani Kumar on the last day with regard to mode and manner of settlement with the complainant that the case was adjourned for further hearing on 6.10.2009 wherein it was recorded that :- ".........while the allegation in the complaint petition for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences is plain and simple that the complainant-wife was ill treated both physically and mentally and in fact was also subjected to harassment on account of second marriage conducted by the husband-petitioner, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he would like to take instruction from the petitioner and his family members as with regard to the way the petitioner would like to 2 settled the dispute. ......" In the meantime counsel for the complainant has appeared and has submitted that there has been no real endeavor or effort on the part of the petitioner to settle the dispute. Mr. Kumar however interrupts to submit that actually the petitioner had gone to bring the complainant back to his house but she had refused to live with the petitioner. The allegation under section 498A I.P.C. against the petitioner made by the complainant is writ large on the face of record. Such allegations do not remain only confined to causing mental torture on account of getting married in the life time of the complainant with another lady but also extends to causing physical torture to the complainant and even to the newly borne issue out of wedlock between the petitioner and the complainant. In this respect the following part of her statement on Solemn Affirmation of the complainant opposite party no. 2 needs to be quoted: ^^esjh 'kknh vkt ls 13 lky igys jktsUnz ds lkFk gqbZ Fkh] 'kknh ds Ms<+ lky ckn jksdlnh gqbZ] ogka xbZ rks eq>dks mijksDr ekjrs 3 ihVrs FksA ckn esa tgj fn;s FksA lhdM+ ls ekjrs FksaA [kkuk&ihuk ugha nsrs Fks diM+k yRrk ugha nsrs FksA eq>s cPpk isSnk gqvk rks mldk iSj pwYgk esa Mky fn;kA eq>s vkt gksyh ds ckn og yksx ekjihV dj fudky fn;ka eSa vius uSgj vkbZA Vw dksVZ lksru dh 'kknh esjh 'kknh ds nks o"kZ ckn fd;k gSA mldks Hkh cPps gsA** In presence of these clinching materials the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the marriage was 13 years old and that the allegations are cooked up has to be only noted for its being rejected. To the extent the complainant could bear the torture she had doneso by living with the petitioner but when she was allegedly thrown out of the house by the petitioner there was no question of going back to the house of the petitioner and as such the explanation now being offered to this Court that the petitioner had gone to bring the opposite party no. 2 back to his house cannot be accepted specially when counsel for the complainant says that there has been no real effort on the part of the petitioner to re-establish the relationship. The grant of bail in an offence 4 under section 498A I.P.C. also involving the allegation of offence under section 494 I.P.C. cannot be treated as a matter of routine only because the maximum punishment under section 498A I.P.C. is three years or seven years in case of one u/s 494 I.P.C. Each case will have to be judged from its own surrounding circumstance and when the petitioner is not prepared to restore the dignity of the wife complainant and has also got married to another lady in the life time of his legally wedded wife, he would not be entitled for grant of bail only because he has remained in jail for a period of nine months on a plea that the maximum punishment can be upto three years only. That being so, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected with a direction to the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is taken up and is concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded in the aforementioned period the petitioner may move the trial court and the trial court will record its reasons for not 5 concluding the trial and only thereafter the petitioner may move this Court. With the aforesaid observations and directions the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/