IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38041 of 2010 BINOD RAI, S/O SRI MAHESH RAI, R/O VILLAGE-GORIGAMA, P.S. MAHUA, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. --PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GANITA DEVI, D/O RAM EKABL RAI, R/O BILANDPUR, P.S. MAHUA, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. --OPP.PARTIES 4 12.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 inspite of appearance through counsel. On previous day also matter was adjourned due to absence of learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Even today matter was adjourned for about one and half hours but proved futile. Petitioner is named accused in this case, being husband of the complainant. Petitioner appears to have already filed Matrimonial Case no. 56 of 2009 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Vaishali (Hajipur), and, undisputedly, in view of proposed amicable settlement between the parties vide order dated 2 08.03.2010 the Sessions Judge, Vaishali, in A.B.P. no.46 of 2010 has granted the privilege to the petitioner on the condition that he along with his wife shall appear before the court below and file petition to that effect besides other conditions. But, as submitted, opposite party no.2 failed to appear in compliance of aforesaid order. On behalf of the petitioner instead of filing of application before the learned Sessions Judge stating the aforesaid state of affairs to seek modification on the condition that one anticipatory bail application was filed before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn to take due steps before the Sessions Judge, but on one or the other grounds nothing could take place and, ultimately, modification has been refused giving rise to present application. In absences of any representation of opposite party no.2, it is difficult to ascertain the intention of opposite party no.2. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner, in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the 3 satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Mahua P.S. Case no. 196 of 2009, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition that the petitioner shall remain present before the court below on the dates fixed till disposal of the case. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation the privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad