IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.19700 of 2010
SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
04 27.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel appearing for the informant.
Petitioner is husband and there is allegation against
him that he along with his other family members demanded rupees
five lacs to start a business and when the aforesaid demand was
not fulfilled, he as well as his other family members started
torturing the informant in both ways mentally and physically.
It would appear from the record that at the instance of
the petitioner a notice was issued to the informant for
reconciliation but today the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is not ready to keep the informant
with him.
On the other hand learned counsel for the informant
submitted that the informant is still ready to lead her conjugal life
with the petitioner.
Although prior to the lodging of the instant case, the
petitioner had filed a divorce case against the informant but in my
view the aforesaid fact is not sufficient to give the benefit of
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, particularly, keeping
in mind the allegation levelled against the petitioner.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
2
However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Sitamarhi P.S.Case no.
121 of 2009 within 30 days from the date of communication of
this order and seek regular bail.
It is made clear that if the petitioner surrenders and
seeks regular bail before the court below, the learned court below
shall consider the aforesaid regular bail application on its own
merit, particularly, keeping in mind that prior to filing of the
instant criminal case, the petitioner had already filed a divorce suit
against the informant and also explore the possibility of
reconciliation.
Shahid/Shahzad (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)