IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11386 of 2010 EHSANUL KHAN @ MANTU KHAN, SON OF LATE MERAJ KHAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16/04/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 323, 354, 498(A), 307, 511 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is in custody since 23.1.2010 and the Informant does not wish to reside with the petitioner because he has already allegedly re-married. In view of such, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Complaint Case No. 981 of 2009 subject to the following condition: (i)That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailor will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in address of the petitioner. The petitioner volunteers to deposit Rs. 2,000 (Two thousand only) per month i.e. half the maintenance amount ordered by Family Court, in the court below firstly within 15 days of the release from jail custody and subsequently by 15th every month which the wife of the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw without prejudice the right of the parties. The court below shall - 2 - inform the wife of the petitioner about the present order. It is brought to the notice of the Court that by an order dated 6.2.2010, the Family Court, Gopalganj has ordered payment of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the Complainant and her two children, but the petitioner intends to file a revision petition against the same. However he is ready to deposit half the ordered amount every month in the court below without prejudice to the rights of the parties till final orders are passed in the Revision (a certificate of which will be filed every month). This Court makes it clear that it has not applied its mind to the merits of the maintenance case. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)