IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1979 of 2010 ANISH KUMAR, son of Baijnath Singh @ Baijnath Pandey, resident of village Nipinia, P.S. Phulwaria, District Begusarai, at present resident of village Damodarpur, P.S. Sonepur, District Saran (Chhapra) Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 23.2.2010 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner, husband, seeking anticipatory bail for offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has submitted that whatever be the genesis of such marriage the petitioner by lapse of time has settled with his fate and has gleefully accepted the complainant as his wife. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that when he had offered to even stay for the mental satisfaction of his wife at his Sasural and had gone there in terms of the order dated 13.10.2009 in A.B.A.No. 778/2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Begusarai, he was not allowed to live in peace and in fact he came back and had narrated his experience on 16.10.2009 by filing an application. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel, would in that 2 context place reliance on the orders dated 16.10.2009 and 5.11.2009 to show that the court thereafter did not make any effort to find out as to who was at fault for not giving shape to the reconciliation as directed in the earlier order dated 13.10.2009. This Court on perusal of the entire order sheet of the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner (A.B.A.No. 778/2009) including the impugned order passed on 5.11.2009 is not in a position to figure out as to why the court rejected the anticipatory bail without recording as to whose lapse or laches such reconciliation has failed. That being so, this application is disposed of with a direction to the Sessions Judge, Begusarai to now issue fresh notice to the complainant and hear the petitioner on the application filed by him on 16.10.2009 and pass a reasoned order as to whether it was on account of any fault of the petitioner that the reconciliation had not been possible or that the petitioner was entitled to be granted anticipatory bail if 3 such resistance for reconciliation came at the instance of the complainant wife or her family members. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/