IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9365 of 2009 MD.SHAMIM ANSARI, S/o late Zannudin Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 16.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no doubt, there was differences in between the wife and husband but that was matrimonial due to the act of complainant, for which Panchayati was also held but she did not accept to reside with the petitioner, rather did not return the ornaments which she has taken. Petitioner has also filed a Divorce Case, but strange enough while the Panchayati held, complainant was residing with her parents. It appears creation of a document to justify the torture alleged in the Complaint Petition. Thereafter, I find another attempt to justify the torture caused upon the wife by filing a Divorce Case. Petitioner is the husband. So he is responsible for the affairs of the wife. I find it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh,J.)