IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1251 of 2010 SURAJ MURMUR @ LAL MURMUR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7. 30.06.2010 The petitioner is absent. His counsel is also not present. Mr. Nafisuzzoha, advocate is present for the complainant who had suo moto appeared by filing Vakalatnama but today she is not present in Court. Vide order dated 7.4.2010, the petitioner Suraj Murmur @ Lal Murmur was allowed provisional bail till 20.5.2010 as the petitioner and the complainant who were the wife and husband had agreed to live together and they were directed to appear in Court on 20.5.2010 for hearing and passing further orders on petitioner’s anticipatory bail application. But on 20.5.2010, the petitioner and his wife did not appear. However, on the request of their counsels, the provisional bail was extended till today i.e. 30.6.2010. But today again none of them is present. The petitioner’s counsel is also not present. Learned counsel for the complainant (wife) is present but he also says that he has no instruction from the complainant who has not turn-up today. In the circumstance, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner is cancelled. Due to the absence of the petitioner, the anticipatory bail application also stands dismissed as not pressed. Learned court below will proceed according to the law with regard to apprehension and production of the petitioner before it as required. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court through fax at the cost of the State. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-