IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.653 of 2011 Vinod Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 12/ 19.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the informant and also heard learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner is husband of the informant and admittedly marriage of the petitioner had taken place with the informant on 6.7.2003 and after marriage a baby was born to the couple. It appears from perusal of the first information report that informant was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the petitioner as well as her in-laws in both ways mentally and physically while she was at her matrimonial home. It further appears that subsequently, she left her matrimonial home and started residing at her natal place where petitioner as well as petitioner’s sister came and mentally tortured her. Informant lodged the present case in the year 2009 and after lodging the aforesaid case, petitioner was arrested by the Madhya Pradesh Police but he was released on transit bail. Subsequently, he preferred anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed being not maintainable and same result came when the petitioner moved before this court for grant of anticipatory bail and subsequently, petitioner surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. It would appear from perusal of the impugned order dated 18.12.2010 that the Chief Judicial Magistrate took pain to patch up the dispute of the parties but on one reason or the other, he could not 2 succeed in his effort and ultimately, he rejected bail petition of the petitioner. Furthermore, it would appear that when the matter was placed before this court on 3.3.2011 petitioner was granted provisional bail for reconciliation and this court too took effort to patch up the dispute of the parties and to restore matrimonial harmony between them but unfortunately, this court also could not succeed in his attempt. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, petitioner is engineer whereas informant is doctor and it appears that the marriage of the petitioner and the informant is ill- matched marriage and this is the reason of the dispute between the parties. It is pointed out by him that admittedly, mother of the petitioner was suffering from cancer since last several years but without caring disease of the mother of the petitioner, informant left her matrimonial home after creating chaos in the family and, as a matter of fact, the alleged story of torturing on account of illegal demand is nothing but creation of mind of the informant. It is further contended by him that petitioner has been remanded in this case on 30.11.2010 and he has already remained in jail custody for more than 90 days and between the aforesaid period mother of the petitioner died of cancer and therefore, above stated circumstances do not permit the petitioner to keep the informant with him and now it is not possible to restore the matrimonial harmony. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that there is specific allegation of torturing as well as illegal demand against the petitioner but in spite of that informant is 3 ready to lead her conjugal life with the petitioner and for that purpose she made several attempts not only before the lower court but also before this court but her all attempts went in vain. Learned counsel for the informant produced web copy of order dated 13.7.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 1347/2011 and submitted that informant is ready to adduce her witnesses in the trial court within two months. He further submitted that the prayer for bail of one Birendra Kumar Sharma who was accused in another case was rejected by this court in similar situation. Having heard contentions of the parties and went through the record, I find that it is a fit case for grant of regular bail because petitioner has already suffered a lot not only by remaining in jail custody for more than 90 days but he has also lost his mother between period of aforesaid litigation. So far order dated 13.7.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 1347/2011 is concerned, it is well known fact that every case is decided on its own merit. So, in my view, learned counsel for the informant can not take any advantage of order dated 13.7.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 1347/2011. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, I think it proper to confirm the order dated 3.3.2011 by which petitioner was granted provisional bail and accordingly, the same is hereby, confirmed on the same bail bonds subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall make his appearance before the trial court on each and every date either by making his physical presence or through lawyer and the learned trial court shall try to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months 4 from the date of receipt of this order. The informant shall adduce her evidence before the trial court within the above stated period. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)