IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8359 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR MAHTON, SON OF LATE PRASADI MAHTON, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANHAN, P.S. SIKANDARA, DISTRICT- JAMUI………………………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…………………………….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate. --------- O R D E R 7. 30.07.2009. The petitioner is one of the F.I.R. named accused of Halsi (Ramgarh Chouk) P.S. Case No.34 of 2008, registered under Sections 498-A and 379/34 I.P.C. as also Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and is in custody in connection therewith. According to the informant, Sangeeta Devi, her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 20.5.2006 and she travelled to her matrimonial home in the month of Phalgun 2006, which would mean after about some 9 months. It is alleged that at the time of bidagri her husband demanded a colour T.V., a motorcycle and cash to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from her parents and brother but her parents expressed their inability to meet the demand and having reasoned with the husband she was sent to the matrimonial home. It is said that she remained in the matrimonial home for 3-4 months during which period her husband always used to torture her to compel her father to meet the demands failing which she would not be permitted to remain - 2 - in the matrimonial home. It is also stated that she was assaulted and subjected to torture and cruelty in various ways. Since there was a chance of compromise between the parties, they were summoned through this Court for reconciliation and consequent to the petitioner agreeing to reunite with the informant and keep her in the matrimonial home with all honour and dignity, he was directed to be released on provisional bail to enable him to go to the house of the informant and in the event of reconciliation to take her back to the matrimonial home where they would live together. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner was released on provisional bail and as would appear from the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, dated 17.7.2009 which has been filed with the supplementary affidavit today in Court, the petitioner had filed a petition in court alongwith affidavit wherein it was mentioned that he had gone to his sasural at village Nandnama where he was assaulted and demand was made from him for payment of marriage cost and litigation cost. The petitioner is said to have filed a petition before the police whereupon the police having entered a sanaha went alongwith the petitioner to Nandnama where the informant-wife refused to return to her matrimonial home. It also appears from the said order that a petition had been filed on behalf of the informant stating that the petitioner had never gone to the sasural till 13.7.2009 for reconciliation and that he had also threatened over telephone to kill the parents of the informant. On perusal of the materials on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the - 3 - finding that there was no chance of revival of the marriage bonds. It would appear from perusal of the written report submitted by the informant that although there was allegation of demand against the petitioner of having demanded a colour T.V., a motorcycle and cash , no specific instances of the date, time and nature of assault or torture have been mentioned save and except an incident of 18.3.2008. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner is hereby extended by 6 months and he is directed to make efforts to hold reconciliation for the survival of the marriage. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)