IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30871 of 2010 JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH, S/o. Shyam Narayan Singh, Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Raman Kumar Singh, S/o. Baleshwar Prasad Singh, ----------- 03. 26.11. 2010 This is the second effort of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. His earlier effort was under Cr. Misc. No. 43480 of 2008, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.05.2009 as passed therein. Before taking any opinion I would like to refer the antecedent of the petitioner’s earlier attempt as under Cr. Misc. No.43480 of 2008 for anticipatory bail. In that case the petitioner’s wife, the sister of O.P. No.2 had appeared and had submitted that she was ready and willing to resume matrimonial relationship with the petitioner. On her such averment the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time for taking instructions with regard to the approach and attitude of the petitioner in this regard. On the next day i.e. 24.04.2009 the petitioner stated that he is willing to resume relationship with the sister of O.P. No.2 and he shall also take her to his 2 working place so that they may continue matrimonial ties with each other in exclusive company without their being any interference from others. On the above statement of the petitioner and his wife the sister of O.P. No.2, this Court had fixed the date (in Cr. Misc. Case No. 43480 of 2008) on 12.05.2009 for appearance of both the parties namely, the petitioner and his wife. It appears that the order dated 24.04.2009 was passed with a view to exploring the possibility of reconciliation between the petitioner and his wife. But it appears that on the fixed date i.e. 12.05.2009 the petitioner withdrew his anticipatory bail application and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. In such view of the matters, I find that the petitioner took his step back and due to that the purpose of reconciliation was frustrated. As to the merit of the case learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has obtained a decree of judicial separation under Matrimonial Case No. 174 of 2006 from the Court of 3 Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. But it appears that the appeal was filed on behalf of sister of O.P. No.2 for setting aside of the ex-party decree. Besides this, also considering the allegations I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)