The court considered the conduct of the petitioner in light of the allegations and found it lacking bona fides, influencing the decision to dismiss the petition for pre-arrest bail.

JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and Ms. Akanksha Malviya, learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no. 2.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Bariarpur PS Case No. 41 of 2020 dated 14.05.2020, instituted under Sections 498A and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner and his relatives/family members, in the case filed by the petitioner's wife-opposite party no. 2, is of torture and also taking away of her cash and jewellery and turning her out of the matrimonial home and also of threat to get the petitioner married somewhere else.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party no. 2 was a widow and had a son from the first marriage and they developed relationship at Mumbai living in the same neighbourhood. It was submitted that the opposite party no. 2, had filed a complaint at Mumbai also but the same was compromised and they married under the Special Marriages Act, but though the petitioner has been ever ready to accept the opposite party no. 2 as his wife, she has repeatedly not cooperated and in fact had tried to kill the petitioner for which he has filed Complaint Case No. 1146 of 2019, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in which cognizance has been taken and process also issued against the informant and others on 02.03.2020 and after coming to know of the same, the present case has been filed on 14.05.2020. Learned counsel submitted that the opposite party no. 2 in the present case had also filed a compromise petition on 19.12.2020, but on the next date in the case before the Court below, she has prayed that the said compromise be not acted upon and she has resiled from the same. It was submitted that she is living in the house of the petitioner and as the petitioner is presently jobless, being dependent on the pension of the father of the petitioner and even the parents of the petitioner are old and suffering from various ailments, but still the opposite party no. 2 is creating problems.

6. On 02.06.2021, the Court had granted interim protection to the petitioner and also given time to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to seek instructions. Thereafter, on 25.06.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner had taken a categorical stand that he was ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 and the child with him in his parents' house. The Court had also noted his stand that the opposite party no. 2 should also undertake that she would live properly with him and not create issues and problems as she was doing in the past, both with him as well as his parents. Thus, having regard to the common stand taken by the parties that both are ready to live with each other, the Court had asked them to file their individual affidavit with regard to their desire to live together and that they would not create any unnecessary issues or problems for each other and further that the petitioner shall keep the opposite party no. 2 and her child with him with full dignity, honour and security.

7. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, all sorts of allegations have been made against the opposite party no. 2 that she has various problems and that she had beaten the mother and father of the petitioner as also the petitioner due to which he has filed Complaint Case No. 470 of 2021 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger on 26.06.2021 and also Divorce Case No. 111 of 2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger.

8. Learned APP submitted that as per the FIR, offence is made out against the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the allegation of cruelty is apparent from what has been