IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34846 of 2009 DILIP KUMAR @ SINTU @ SINTU YADAV son of Chandeshwari yadav @ Chandeshwari Prasad Yadav, resident of mohalla mayaganj, Police Station Barari District Bhagalpur. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Nisha Kumari D/O Chandra Dev Pd. Yadav, village+P.O. Kalighat Maya Ganj, P.S. Barari, District Bhagalpur. ----------- 4 26/2/2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner as also taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court would not find the present one to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who has been made accused for offences under Section 448, 323, 504, 506, 426, 379, 498A I.P.C. and Section 314 of Dowry Prohibition Act was never married to the daughter of the informant and in fact he was abducted from his house and was recovered before the alleged marriage could be performed. On the other hand, counsel for the Informant has not only produced certificate of marriage which is said to have been taken place in a temple but has also come out with a case that daughter of the Informant after such marriage on 10.9.2008 lived together for a period over one month and she had also carried pregnancy as was found by a Gynaecologist on 15.3.2009. In a dispute of this nature where existence of marriage is questioned by one side and reaffirmed by other side by making such statement, which in the normal Indian context would be 2 impossible for an unmarried girl to claim bearing child of a stranger, this Court would find that the petitioner by only denying such marriage would not be in a position to annul the marriage either on the ground of his being minor or an informatory petition filed after 2 days of the marriage specially when the police in course of investigation has found both the factum of marriage and demand of dowry for causing mental and physical torture to be true. Additionally when the counsel for the petitioner has also informed that neither the petitioner is prepared to ammend his ways by restoring the status of his wife and living together in a dignified manner nor would support her financially till the marriage subsists and has not been annulled by the competent court, there would be little option but to reject the prayer for anticipatory bail. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected but if the petitioner would surrender and seek regular bail, the same would be considered and decided on merits without being influenced by this order. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)