IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42393 of 2009 ARJUN KUMAR son of Ram Laulin Mahto, resident of village Rashidpur, Rachiyahi, P.S. Bachwara, District Begusarai.. … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … …OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Ranjan No. 1, Advocate For the State: Mr. U.S.P. Singh, APP For the Informant: Mrs. Renuka Sharma, Advocate ----------- 15 02.04.2010 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant. The petitioner is in custody and seeks bail in a case registered under sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to live with the informant extending full dignity and honour. It is further submitted that the petitioner in custody since 11.09.2010. Further contention is that the allegation regarding the second marriage is not correct. However, an affidavit has been filed stating therein that even if the informant does not want to reside with the petitioner, he is ready to maintain her by paying 1/3rd of his remuneration as Panchayat Shikshak. The petitioner was earlier granted temporary bail and the husband and the wife both were directed to 2 remain present in Court and on the concerned date they were present also. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that since the petitioner has remarried a girl and is living with the second wife and for that reason, the informant has all along been subjected to torture, there will be no question of living with the petitioner. It is further stated on behalf of the informant that a case for maintenance bear 20 of 2009 is pending before the Principal Judge, Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur However, in view of the stand taken by the parties and undertaking on behalf of the petitioner as well as taking into consideration the period of incarceration of the petitioner, this Court would be inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, I direct the abovenamed petitioner, ARJUN KUMAR, to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dalsingsarai in Complaint Case No. 197/08 with further condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 1350/-(as per his undertaking), per month in the 3 second week of every month from April 2010 till the decision of the Maintenance Case No. 20 of 2009. The amount shall be deposited by the petitioner in the concerned court and the informant will be at liberty to withdraw the same. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. It is made clear that the concerned court while disposing of the maintenance case shall pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any of the observation/ direction/ finding of this Court in the present order. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)