IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16922 of 2009 MANOJ SINGH son of Govind Singh, resident of village-Nanhka Simarda, P.S. Mirganj, District- Sitamarhi ……………………….. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ………………………. Opposite Party ----------- 2 15.05.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, husband is facing prosecution under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as a matter of fact, his wife, the victim lady, was residing with her father, complainant in Delhi where he has operating his own taxi. Counsel would further submit that his wife without informing her husband suddenly ran away on 19.10.2007 and when after a long search she could not be found in Delhi, he had also lodged an information before the New Friends Colony Police Station. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that thereafter the wife of the petitioner is residing in her Naihar on her volition and yet this false complaint case was filed suggesting that the daughter of the informant (wife of the petitioner) has been 2 made to disappear altogether. Counsel in this context, would further submit that the wife is still staying in his Naihar and if she is prepared to restore her conjugal relationship with the petitioner, the petitioner will have no difficulty in accepting her as his wife. Recording the aforementioned statements and the stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner this Court would direct the petitioner namely Manoj Singh to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today whereupon the petitioner will be granted provisional bail for a period of eight weeks on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1546 of 2007, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in this period of eight weeks the Court will issue notice to the complainant as also to the wife of the petitioner and would record their statement and if it is found that it is the wife of the petitioner who does not want to 3 live with the petitioner, the provisional bail of the petitioner would be confirmed, but on the other hand if it is found that it is the petitioner who is responsible for causing cruelty on his wife and is actually not prepared to restore the conjugal relationship with all due respect and dignity to his wife, the court below would cancel the provision bail of the petitioner and taken him into custody, whereafter the petitioner may move afresh for grant of regular bail on merits. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)