IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1551 of 2009 MAHESH SAH, son of Late Visheshwar Sah, resident of Village Narhan Bazar, P.S. Bibhutipur, District Samastipur. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 24.3.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The offence alleged against the petitioner-the husband of the deceased is under sections 304B, 120B and 201 of the Penal Code. The allegation in a nutshell is to the effect that on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the daughter of the complainant/informant was done to death. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as a matter of fact, the daughter of the complainant was never killed and she is still alive. It is further submitted that the daughter of the complainant had earlier filed a matrimonial suit for divorce, vide Matrimonial Suit No.45/2004, as contained in Annexure 2, wherein she has alleged that she has deserted the petitioner on account of his alleged ill-behaviour. It is further submitted that on perusal of the ordersheet of the said matrimonial case (Annexure 4), it would appear that the daughter of the complainant used to appear on several dates even after lodging of the case, as contained in Annexure 1, and prior to this, the present complainant has filed the complaint case against the petitioner and his brother as well as the mother of the petitioner for allegedly committing the offence under section 364 of the Indian 2 Penal Code. However, in the said complaint it is stated that on account of ill-treatment meted out by the petitioner for non-fulfilling the demand, the in-laws members continued to have grudge against the daughter of the complainant which ultimately led to her killing and disposing of her body. From the above, it is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the annexures annexed to the petition, including the complaint filed by the complainant prior to the lodging of the present complaint, it has been stated to the effect that the petitioner had taken the daughter of the complainant and later she was killed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to allow the application seeking anticipatory bail. The application is, accordingly, rejected. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)