IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21017 of 2010 DHANANJAY KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 15.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant as well as learned counsel for the state. Petitioner is husband of the complainant and he apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 731 C of 2008 for the offences punishable under sections 323 & 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Though the submission of the learned counsel is that the complainant’s father had taken Rs 1,50,000/- from the petitioner on credit and when the aforesaid amount was demanded by the petitioner, the complainant at the behest of her father lodged this false case. He also points out that two complaint cases have been filed by the petitioner against the complainant as well as her natal people and the cognizance in the aforesaid two cases have already been taken. The filing of cases on behalf of the petitioner shows his intention and moreover, the order of learned sessions judge reveals that when the hearing of anticipatory bail of the petitioner was taken before learned sessions judge, the complainant was ready to lead her conjugal life with the petitioner but it was the petitioner who refused to keep the complainant. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and 2 circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I do not find it a fit case to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition stands rejected. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court below and seek regular bail within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order to the concerned court (Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda) and if he does so, the learned court below shall consider the regular bail application of the petitioner on its own merit without being prejudiced by this rejection order. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)