IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5084 of 2010 AKHLESH KUMAR PANDEY @ AKHILESH KUMAR PANDEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 19 20.04.2011 Perused the office note. Office has reported that the notice upon opposite party no. 2 has been validly served. The petitioner was granted provisional bail vide order dated 16.03.2010, which was extended from time to time. Notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 and the husband and the wife both were directed to remain present. Thereafter the matter was heard on several occasions and both sides were present. However, on 14.07.2010 neither the learned counsel for the informant did appear nor was she present in person before this Court. In above view of the matter, fresh notice was directed to be issued. However, the matter has been taken up on several occasions but it appears that despite service of notice opposite party no. 2 is not appearing in this case. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has already remained in custody for a period of about seven months. The effort of rapprochement between the parties was also not fruitful. However, supplementary affidavit has been 2 filed on behalf of the petitioner taking the stand that he is ready to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to opposite party no. 2 as maintenance. In above view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 16.03.2010 is hereby made absolute with a further condition that he shall deposit Rs. 1500/- in the first week of every month commencing from May 2011 before the court which is in seisin of the matter. The informant would be at liberty to withdraw the aforesaid amount. Such arrangement will be subject to any order if passed by any court of competent jurisdiction with regard to allowing maintenance to the wife. If such matter is taken by the competent court then this order would not come in its way while deciding the issue of allowing maintenance to the wife. It is also made clear that if the petitioner violates his undertaking and does not deposit the required amount, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)