IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4409 of 2011 Rakesh Pathak @ Jhunu Pathak, S/O-Ramkant Pathak Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 04 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner is husband and there is specific allegation against him that he used to torture the informant. It would appear from perusal of the impugned order that petitioner was granted privilege of anticipatory bail on the basis of compromise and he assured before the court that he would keep the informant properly but informant came before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar and made complaint that she was beaten up by the petitioner. This Court called for the injury report of the informant and in response to the order of this Court, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar sent the injury report of the informant vide letter no. 27 of 2011 dated 09.05.2011. It would appear from perusal of the injury report of the informant that she sustained altogether seven injuries on her person though almost all the injuries are simple in nature and said to be caused by hard and blunt substance. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has sufficiently been punished by remaining in judicial custody near about six months but I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection 2 with Itarhi P.S. Case No. 66 of 2010, stands rejected. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year in custody. Shahzad ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)