IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12026 of 2011 Guriya Devi, wife of Dharmendra Kumar D/o Dharmraj Choudhary, resident of Mohalla- Mahalpur, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dharmendra Kumar son of Late Rajendra Choudhary, resident of New Colony Nimtal P.S.- Khusrupur, District Patna at present Dharmendra Kumar (Helpar Bridge Section) Senior Section Engineer, Pull Estern Railway Office of B. R. I., Lahartarpul, District- Varanasi. … Opposite parties. ----------- 2. 05.08.2011 The informant, petitioner has preferred this application against the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Cr. Misc. No. 28 of 2011 by which the petition for cancellation of bail of her husband, opposite party no. 2 has been dismissed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of compromise that opposite party no. 2 will live with the petitioner, learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 13.1.2011 but opposite party no. 2 does not take the petitioner to lead conjugal life. Learned A. P. P. for the State submits that it appears from the impugned order 2 that the husband is ready to keep the victim suitably but even after the victim is not ready to live and on this ground the learned Sessions Judge has refused to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 13.1.2011. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. P. P. for the State and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that opposite party no. 2 was granted bail by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.1.2011 in Bihar P. S. Case No. 284 of 2010 considering the fact that there has been an amicable compromise between both the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 and to this effect a joint petition was filed that husband-opposite party no. 2 will keep the wife, petitioner suitably and the wife was also ready to live with her husband. It further appears from the impugned order that the husband of the petitioner is still ready to keep her suitably and on this ground learned Sessions Judge has refused to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any 3 ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)