IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17597 of 2009 DHIRENDRA KUMAR RAI @ DHIRENDRA RAI SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BALAHA MAKSUDANPUR, P.S. PUPARI, DISTT. SITAMARHI ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIPO DEVI, WIFE OF DHIRENDRA KUMAR RAI, D/O LATE RAM SHARAN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BALAHA MAKSUDANPUR, P.S. PUPARI, DISTRICT SITAMARHI AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GHUGHLA, P.S. PUPARI, DISTT. SITAMARHI. -------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 08/10/2009 The petitioner is the husband. He is an accused in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claims that he works in Delhi and when he returned he found that his wife has returned to her parent’s house and she refused to come back with him. The petitioner claims that he is willing to live with his wife. While considering the petitioner’s regular bail, before passing final order with respect to grant of bail, the court below should ask the parties to appear and find out whether reconciliation is possible between them In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected. S. Ali (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)