HARKISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a Government servant aged about 40 years and he had been residing separately and not concerned with the dispute between the husband and wife. The petitioner has also produced the copy of the ration card reflecting that he had been residing separately. By order dated 31st March, 2008 before the Sessions Judge it was stated that whatsoever articles of the respondent No. 2/applicant are with the petitioner, be returned by him and consequently the matter was listed on 22nd april, 2008.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the seizure memo dated 9th April, 2008 was prepared stipulating that 11 articles were returned by the petitioner and taken by police as the complainant had declined to take them. Despite the return of the articles by the petitioner the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by order dated 22nd April, 2008 on the ground that there is no change in the circumstances for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/applicant on instructions from the complainant states that the articles which has been returned are not her articles and she is not ready to accept them. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no other articles.