IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1836 of 2010 Fulo Paswan @ Phool Baboo Paswan, Son of Shital Paswan, Resident of Village Gudhma, P.S. sarairanjan, District Samastipur. ------- Petitioner Versus State of Bihar ----- Opp. Party ----------- 2 23.2.2010 Heard Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Yesterday, after the case was heard at some length Mr. Singh had taken an adjournment to find out as to whether it was possible for the petitioner to support his wife in case they would not stay together under one roof. However in absence of any instruction, today he has proceeded to make submissions on merit. Mr. Singh would firstly submit that the marriage of the petitioner had taken place in the year 2004 and thereafter the husband petitioner had made repeated attempts to take his wife, complainant to Ludhiana where he was/is working for his livelihood but she had always adopted a defiant attitude and was reluctant to restore her relationship with the petitioner and as such, when the petitioner 2 came to know that the complainant had also developed an illicit relationship with someone else he had no option but to file an application for restitution of conjugal rights. Counsel, in this regard had stressed on the aspect that when in the written statement filed by the complainant wife in the said case for restitution of conjugal right of the husband petitioner had taken a specific stand that she was not desirous in living with the petitioner, the obvious inference was that it was/is the complainant wife who is on the wrong side and therefore, either the allegation made in the complaint petition as with regard to mental and physical torture or driving her out from the house on account of demand of dowry by the petitioner has to be held as be a false, concocted and infact an absurd story and thus entitled to the privilege of grant of anticipatory bail. This Court would however find that had Mr. Singh probably not read the written statement of the wife opposite party no.2 in halfhearted manner he could in all probability not missed the reason behind such refusal of 3 the complainant to live together with the petitioner. The complainant infact in her written statement has stated that the allegation of her being unchaste is absolutely false and that there was infact no genuine effort ever made by the petitioner to rehabilitate her (complainant) whenever she was given a very rough deal by the parents of the petitioner. It was infact in that context that she having explained all the aspects and the reasons for not living with her husband, she had stated that on account of aforesaid brutal and inhuman conduct on the part of the husband and her in laws that she had stated that it was not possible to restore her relationship. If that be so, the petitioner having initially called his wife unchaste and thereafter trying to restore relationship by filing a case for restitution of conjugal right must be held to be only pretending for establishing relationship with the wife. In that view of the matter, this Court will not readily accept the defence of the petitioner at least for the purpose of grant of 4 anticipatory bail that he is always prepared to take his wife complainant with him for residing at Ludhiana specially when his counsel had also refused to take any firm stand for on behalf of the petitioner for giving financial support to his wife, opposite party no. 2. That being so, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, namely, Fulo Paswan @ Phool Baboo Paswan is hereby rejected. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)