IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12480 of 2010 RAJESH PRASAD, SON OF SHRI RAM CHANDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA GURUDWARA ROAD, TOWARDS THE RIVER, P.S. JAGARNATHPUR, DISTRICT RANCHI.--- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. REKHA DEVI, WIFE OF RAJESH PRASAD AND DAUGHTER OF SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AT PRESENT, MOHALLA QUARTER NO. 552/B LOCO COLONY, P.O. R.S. GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA- 823 002. --- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 26.4.2010 Heard the parties. The order impugned dated 12.8.2009, passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya and the order dated 24.2.2010, passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1560 of 2008, this Court had granted provisional bail to the petitioner on the basis of the fact that he would give undertaking that he is willing to live with his wife. The parties appeared before the Court below. The petitioner filed an affidavit stating that he is willing to live with his wife and the wife also says that she is also willing to live with her husband provided that he took her to the place where the petitioner resides. The order of the High Court is that “In the event dispute is resolved or complainant is back to her matrimonial home or she is found to be unreasonable, provisional bail granted to the petitioners be confirmed, failing which court below shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law considering the reasonableness of the stand of the parties.” The petitioner is working as a Sepoy in Indian Military Service. It is the stand of the petitioner that he would not be able to take his wife to his place of posting as per the rules. In any event the 2 aim of the High Court as well as the Courts below should be to get the matter amicably settled between husband and wife. True it is that the petitioner ought to have appeared before the Court below on the date fixed by the Court. At the time when the date was being fixed the petitioner ought to have made prayer that he cannot appear frequently in view of the services that he does. Learned counsel however, submits that the ground for taking time was in fact that the petitioner had fallen unwell and had sent his medical certificates etc. along with the petition to the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya asking him for time under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, direct that the Court below should condone the application under Sections 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and fix a date for appearance of the petitioner and finally try to dispose of the matter within two consecutive dates with respect to confirming or rejecting the provisional bail after considering the issues raised by both the parties. For this purpose, the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya may examine the parties in his Chambers, if necessary. The orders impugned are quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)