IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18376 of 2011 KALU PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 14.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused in Complaint Case no. 157 of 2010 and is indicted for having harassed and ill-treated the complainant, his wife, who was married to him ten years prior to the filing of the complaint petition. What appears from the rejection order is that the complainant had also taken a plea that the petitioner had married another lady. The learned Sessions Judge has refused the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail in absence of any defence plea and has directed him to surrender and pray for regular bail. During the hearing of the present petition, it was contended that the petitioner is ready to take the lady back to his family fold. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions judge, this court does not have much faith in the submission of the petitioner inasmuch as he was flatly refusing to maintain the complainant in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. taken out by the lady before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar. Not only that, there is absence of necessary details as to what were the allegations in that behalf but it is sufficiently indicated that the petitioner has levelled some filthy allegations in 2 his written statement filed before the Family Court. However, after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant and after considering the submission, what this court desires is to direct the S.D.J.M., Katihar, who is trying the aforesaid complaint case, to call the complainant and the present petitioner into his chambers by drawing up an order to the above effect and showing the same to the counsel of both the parties. The petitioner must appear on the date fixed by the court below, which shall impress upon the parties the wisdom of joining each other so as to lead a happy matrimonial life and, in case the lady appears agreeable to joining the petitioner without putting forth any unreasonable conditions or she simply refuses to join the petitioner in his house for no sound reasons, then in that case, the magistrate himself shall admit the petitioner to bail on execution of a bond to his own satisfaction. It shall be ensured by the court below that some devices are developed by it so as to control the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner towards the complainant and for that he should call the couple in re-conciliation proceeding after every two months for a considerable period so as to assessing the development in the relationship. If the petitioner appears sticking up to the same allegations which has been referred to by the Sessions judge and putting forth conditions for taking back the lady or appears disregarding the direction of this court as also of the lower court to join the reconciliation process as presently ordered, then in that case, 3 there could not be any order for bail in his favour. It may be a case in which the court below may take a couple of dates or more than those dates in striking settlement between the parties. For that much period, the petitioner shall not be arrested or remanded to custody. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this application stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the court aforesaid through FAX in case the cost is deposited by the petitioner. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)