The Court's decision was influenced by the substance found in the allegations and the petitioner's conduct, leading to the dismissal of the petition for pre-arrest bail.

JUDGMENT

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

2. Heard Mr. Mohammed Abu Haidar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case 576 (C) of 2019 dated 23.07.2019, instituted under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506, 494, 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The allegation against the petitioner, who is the husband of the opposite party no. 2 is of torture, due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 1 lakh, Hero Honda motorcycle, washing machine and attempt to kill her by the accused persons and snatching of her belongings and finally ousting her from the matrimonial home.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are totally false and it is the opposite party no. 2 herself who was not willing to live in the matrimonial home right from the beginning and was pressurizing the petitioner to live with the parents of the opposite party no. 2 and also sending all his money to the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel submitted that prior to filing of the present case, the petitioner and his family members had filed an informatory petition before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran on 16.12.2014, in which it has been alleged that the opposite party no. 2 was threatening the petitioner and his family members that she would commit suicide and harass the family of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner was working in Gulf and used to send money to the opposite party no. 2, in support of which he drew the attention of the Court to part Annexure 2, which shows that at one point of time, Rs. 5,000/- was sent in the name of the father of the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel submitted that finally when the opposite party no. 2, along with her son had left the matrimonial home, he had married again. It was submitted that the petitioner is ready to give Rs. 60,000/- to the opposite party no. 2, but she has refused for any such settlement. It was further submitted that the petitioner has come back to India due to the pandemic and is now earning a meager amount doing private job. It was submitted that the opposite party no. 2 had herself left the matrimonial home and her father has given in writing that his complaint to the police be not acted upon and that he was taking back the opposite party no. 2 with him and had no grievance on which, the opposite party no. 2 and her sister had signed on 03.10.2018 and the same has been given to the Officer In-charge, Lauria PS. Learned counsel submitted that on 03.10.2018, the petitioner's father had also signed on a document stating that the petitioner was leaving his house to live separately with the opposite party no. 2 and shall have no claim over the property and money of the father.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner and his family have very cleverly engineered and planned the whole thing with the intention to oust the opposite party no. 2 and not accept her as his wife. It was submitted that in the note of the father of the opposite party no. 2 dated 03.10.2018, before the Officer Incharge, Lauria PS, it was written that there was a complaint which he had lodged and, thus, taking back the opposite party no. 2 with him and saying that he has no grievance clearly indicates it was under duress as there was no occasion for him to give such an undertaking before the police and such conduct is highly unnatural and further that if there was no complaint, there was no occasion for him to take back his daughter. It was submitted that the falsity of such settlement and having no complaint would also be obvious and clear from the fact that on the same day, it is claimed that the father of the petitione