IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42062 of 2010 JAI PRAKASH KUMAR . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 03. 26.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband in Complaint case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, invites the attention of the Court to paragraph-5 of the impugned order of rejection as follows:- “When husband and wife both have come in person and husband is ready to execute a bond for the peaceful matrimonial life. The father of girl has also come in person.” The order then directs him to surrender and seek regular bail for restoring matrimonial harmony. The order appears mechanical. Little did, the Court realize that the duty of the Court was to restore broken homes and not to break restored homes. Unfortunately the order is in teeth of the observations of this Court in 2006 (3) PLJR 182 ad 2006 (4) PLJR 342. Let the above named petitioner surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today when he shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail 2 bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Sadar, Motihari in connection with Complaint Case No. 2585 of 2009, Tr. No. 368 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)