JUDGMENT : Anant Bijay Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 147, 498(A), 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The prosecution case is that complainant Sandhya Sinha instituted a complaint petition No. 1131 of 2016 in the court of C.J.M. Garhwa on 19.07.2016 under Section 147, 498(A), 323, 379 and 504 of the I.P.C. and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act thereafter which was referred under Section 156(3) registered Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 153 of 2016 in which complainant Sandhya Sinha aged about 27 years was married with Deepak Sinha @ Deepak Kumar Sinha on 20.02.2015 according to Hindu Rites. That after the marriage the complainant went to Sasural and after remaining there for few days she went to Mungeli, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh along with her husband where her husband was posted in Dena Bank as a clerk and everything was peaceful for 8-9 months. That in December, 2015 the husband was transferred to Ambikapur were husband's parents were residing and since thereafter the trouble started. It is also alleged that complainant was mentally and physically tortured for demand of a car. It is also alleged that complainant was sent to her father's house from where she returned to her sasural on 30.04.2016, thereafter again the demand of car was made, inability to fulfil the said demand was expressed by the complainant upon which the physical and mental torture was meted out to her and on 01.06.2016 she was again sent to her Maike and the in-laws snatched her streedhan of about Rs. 3.50 lakhs. Further on 17.07.2016, the husband came and told the complainant that without car she will not be allow to live in Sasural, hence the case has been lodged. 4. On 09.01.2017, notices were issued to the O.P. No. 2 and both the parties have appeared on 24.04.2017 and with consent of the parties, the matter was referred to the Member Secretary, JHALSA for conciliation, but it had been failed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that petitioner never demanded any kind of dowry nor ever tortured her for the same. It is also submitted that the petitioner and complainant was solemnized the marriage on 20.02.2015. On 24.02.2015 the complainant had made a complaint of stomach pain to her husband and in-laws family, thereafter petitioner had immediately taken the complainant for treatment at Amibikapur. Medical prescription of treatment of O.P. No. 2 has been brought on record by filing the supplementary affidavit. It is also submitted that petitioner has filed a case under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Amibkapur, Chattisgarh. It is also submitted that O.P. No. 2 has instituted six different cases against the petitioner i.e. Case No. 98 of 2016 filed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Case No. 904 of 2016 filed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, complaint petition No. 1679 of 2016, information Petition No. 25 of 2016, maintenance case no. 78 of 2016, complaint dated 22.07.2017 to the Officer-in-Charge, Bhawnathpur Police station and Misc. Case No. 713 of 2017 under section 107 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Nagar Utari, Jharkhand, hence petitioner deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer for bail and filed the counter affidavit, in which it has been stated that petitioner and his father & mother has taken all possible steps to harm the life of the O.P. No. 2 as she has not been allowed to run the fan in the room in the summer season. She has been kept in a room where always the smoke of the different types of fuel comes on the belief that the O.P. No. 2 mentally not fit lady. It is also submitted that father of the O.P. No. 2 has provided expenses and ultimately she has been treated in Rajpur where nothing has been found and she has been found fit. It is also submitted that father of the O.P. No. 2 has provided expenses and ultimately she has been treated in Rajpur where nothing has been found and she has been found fit. It is also submitted that O.P. No. 1 still want to reunion and she has filed a matrimonial suit bearing Case No. 98 of 2016 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Right before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa and petitioner has filed a divorce case under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.04.2017. It is also submitted that supplementary counter affidavit filed by the O.P. No. 2 on 09.08.2017 bringing on record that on 01.06.2016 had tried to take the O.P. No. 2 forcibly in car and with intention to take her life away and when the O.P. No. 2 shouted for help then the neighbours gathered there and asked the reason then the petitioner said to them that her parents had expired and petitioner was abused to the O.P. No. 2. 7. This court under order dated 10.08.2017, was directed to learned A.P.P to get these documents verified and status report of the case was called for and also intimate the Magistrate who will report whether any regular case has been instituted or not on complainant Case No. 679 of 2016. 8. The report of Officer-in-Charge, Bhawnathpur police station, which reveals that he has received the copy of the complaint 1131 of 2016 along with complaint Case No. 1679 of 2016 in which complaint number has wrongly been mentioned and it was again sent for correction and after correction Garhwa P.S. Case No. 153 of 2016 has been instituted and this case relates to threaten of O.P. No. 2 for pressure of withdraw the case and again threaten to the O.P. No. 2 on 04.10.2016 and prior to that 22.07.2017 the henchmen of the accused again threaten the O.P. No. 2 and in this regard the F.I.R. No. 76 of 2017 has been instituted against the accused and proceeded under section 107 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 has been directed to be taken. 9. After hearing the parties and series of litigation is going on between the parties and petitioner is being the husband of the informant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9. After hearing the parties and series of litigation is going on between the parties and petitioner is being the husband of the informant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.