IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43651 of 2007 Md. Jahangir @ Aurang, son of Md. Salauddin, resident of village – Sonbarsa Raj, P.S. – Sonbarsa, District – Saharsa. -------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Md. Akhtar Hussain, son of Md. Kalim, resident of Mohalla – Mir Tola, P.S. – Saharsa, District – Saharsa. -------- Opposite Parties. ******* 22. 14.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner, apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 109C/2005 for offences under Sections 498A, 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is one of the named accused in this case complaint case of the year 2005 being husband of the informant with allegation of demand of dowry, torture etc. in spite of being blessed with one male child. Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the he intends to resume and continue matrimonial relationship with the complainant opposite party no. 2, but on one or the other pretext, it is yet to be materialized, even during pendency of this application in pursuance of different orders reasonable amount has been paid to the complainant opposite party no. 2 and now nothing remains due. To further strengthen his intention an offer is being made to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- (twenty five hundred only) per month by way of interim maintenance to the complainant opposite party no.2 and her child subject to any other order of the competent court on the point. However, while objecting the prayer, it is pointed out that orders of this court have not been fully complied with and some amount is still due to be paid to complainant opposite party no. 2, but details is difficult to be ascertain for the present in absence of the parties in person. The complainant opposite party no. 2 is also ready to join company of the petitioner but on certain conditions required in view of her physical drawbacks happened during wedlock. The petitioner, for the present, resides at Dubai in connection with his livelihood. In view of the above, in the event of filing joint application of compromise or individual petition on behalf of the petitioner stating all such intention and offer and begin with the payment with further undertaking to clear the dues, if any, occurred in compliance of earlier orders of this court pending disposal, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, let the above- named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in connection with Complaint Case No. 109C/2005, subject to condition under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and additional condition to attend the court regularly till disposal of the case, in the event of failure on six consecutive dates, without any reasonable explanation, or any default in payment the privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. Further additional condition is that in the event of filing of joint application or in case of individual petition but only on receipt of positive response from the informant court below will permit the couple to go and reside at their place of choice and to report personally on the dates fixed for the purpose only on being satisfied with their conduct any reasonable order in accordance with law may be passed. Rajeev/- ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)