AB 1185/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.R.. SARMA Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also hea rd Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-respon dent and Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel, appearing for the informant. This is an application, filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner, namely Sri Pranab Kumar Das, in connection with Ba ihata Chariali P.S. Case No.73/2011, under Sections 498A/420/325/ 294/506/34 IPC . Perused the Case Diary. The petitioner is on interim bail w.e.f. 04.05.2011. The allegation made against the petitioner, as revealed from the FIR, is that, the petitioner is the husband of the informant, who lodged the FIR with the poli ce. In the FIR aforesaid, it has been alleged that the petitioner, after the mar riage with the informant, used to mentally and physically torture the informant. The relatives and family members of her husband also assaulted her and drove he r out of the marital home. This compelled her to take shelter in her parent’s ho use. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the informant, without any reason, left the marital home and the petitioner has already filed a suit for restitution of conjugal life. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also submitted, that the petitioner is ready and willing to accept the informant and continue with their family life. Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel, appearing for the informant, has submitted, that the informant has not received any notice in respect of the said suit for restit ution of conjugal life. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for the parties and considering the entire aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is prospect of re-un ion between the said couple. Therefore, the detention of the petitioner in custo dy may adversely affect the prospect of re-union between the petitioner and the informant. In view of above, I find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the interim order, dated 04.05.2011 is made absolute, subject to th e condition that, the petitioner shall make himself available before the Investi gating Officer as and when so required for the purpose of investigation and he s hall not interfere with the investigation. It is also provided, that the petitio ner shall not intimidate the informant in any manner. With the above direction, this A.B. Application is disposed of. Return the Case Diary.