IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33699 of 2011 Ajay Singh @ Ajay Kumar Son of Late Khublal Mahato resident of Village- Narsuli, P.S. Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur. -----------------Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar -----------Opposite Party ------------------------------ 2. 30.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears for the State in spite of the name being called out and also being printed in the cause list. This Court is constrained to observe that inspite of the name appearing learned counsel for the State and its functionaries is neither present nor any other counsel on behalf of the State is present. In the absence of the learned counsel for the State Court proceeding suffers and the benefit is likely to accrue to the undeserving person who has moved before this Court. However, the Court would not like to further indulge on that issue. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Complaint Case No. 3326 of 2009 registered under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are of civil nature and later on he has also filed a suit for divorce in which the complainant who is the wife of the petitioner herself stated that she is no more willing to live with him. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to return all the articles which he has received during the marriage and would not create any hurdle in the same. In view of the categorical submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is ready to return all the belongings to his wife, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within eight weeks from today the petitioner namely, Ajay Singh @ Ajay Kumar shall 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 S.D.J.M. East Muzaffarpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3326 of 2009, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that the petitioner’s bail would be the subject to review in the event the petitioner does not return all the articles and the lower Court dealing with the matter in divorce case as well as in the present case shall also take judicial notice of this fact including cancellation of his bail. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application stands disposed off. Anand Kr. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)