IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37350 of 2008 ALOK KUMAR SINGH, S/O Rajeshwar Singh, R/O Vill- Piparia, P.S.- Mohania, Distt- Kaimur at Bhabua, at present working as Manager (Legal, administration and Personnel) Boparak a Marital Security Ret. Ltd. 101, 102, Bharat Industrial Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup(W), Mumbai- 400078. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Riniki Singh, D/O Umashankar Singh, resident of Moresarai, P.S.- Sheosagar, Distt- Rohtas at Sasaram, presently working at Anudeshika in Government Middle School, Usari 7 Block- Mohania, Distt- Kaimur at Bhabua. 3. Umashankar Singh, S/O Late Prasidh Singh, R/O – Moresari, P.S.- Sheosagar, Distt- Rohtas. ……..Opp. Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Narendra Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv. For the O.P.:- Mr. Sudama Singh, Adv. With Mr. Rajnikant Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Atul Chandra, Addl. P.P. 4 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasram in Cr. Misc. No. 41 of 2007, whereby the petitioner’s anticipatory bail in Sheosagar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2006 registered under Sections 498A, 323 and 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been cancelled. It appears that the petitioners was granted anticipatory bail on 07.06.2006 by the learned court below on the undertaking that the petitioner will take his 2 wife to her matrimonial house, but subsequently, on 29.06.2008 a decree of divorce was passed by the learned Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, vide Petition No. A-778 of 2007, admittedly the petitioners initially violated the terms of the anticipatory bail. In view of the changed circumstance in which decree of divorce has been passed on appearance of the petitioner (the wife) which get reflected from para 8 of the order of Bandra Court as contained in Annexure 4. The para 9 of the order further reflects that the O.P. No. 2 shown her helplessness to attend the court at Bandra. In that view of the matter no useful purpose well be served by cancelling the bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that decree of divorce has not been challenged till date. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that he has no instructions to that effect. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that out of the matrimonial ties there are two issues of which female child is with the petitioners and whereas the mail child with the O.P. No. 2. In the circumstances the petitioner agrees to 3 pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 in the first week of every month from February, 2011, through account payee cheaque. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 will supply the account no. to the petitioners within a period of one week. The payment of aforesaid amount will be subject to any order passed in maintenance of matrimonial proceedings. In view of the discussions made above the order dated, 11.07.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Cr. Misc. No. 41 of 2007 is hereby quashed. Bhardwaj ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)