IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22376 of 2009 KRITYA NAND SUMAN Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SNEHLATA ----------- 6 02.12.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who is husband, has approached this court seeking bail in a case instituted under diverse sections of Penal Code including Sections 498A and 307 IPC. Under order dated 23.7.2009, having noticed the submissions on behalf of the petitioner, the informant (wife of the petitioner) was impleaded as opposite party no. 2 and notices were issued. Petitioner was granted provisional bail for a period of eight weeks. Subsequently, under order dated 15.9.2009, the period of provisional bail was extended as the report regarding service of notice was not received. On 11.11.2009, the following order was passed: ”learned counsels for the petitioner, complainant and State are present. It has been stated by both the counsels that they are now prepared to live together as husband and wife. It is next submitted at the bar that if a particular date is fixed by this Court, both the husband and wife shall appear before the Court and thereafter proceed to the matrimonial home. As jointly prayed, list this matter again on 18.11.2009. It is made clear that the provisional bail granted to the petitioner under order dated 23.7.2009, shall continue until further orders.” Pursuant to the aforesaid order, both the informant as well as the petitioner appeared before this court. After hearing 2 their respective counsels, the following order was passed on 18.11.2009: “Pursuant to the last order, both the petitioner as well as the complainant/informant are present in person. Mr. Choubey learned senior counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. Ajay representing the complainant/informant state before this court that today itself the husband and wife shall talk to each other and try to resolve the issues in between them. Learned counsel for the parties will appraise the court about outcome of their agreement/settlement, if any. As prayed for, list this matter after a week for final disposal.” Today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is present in the court and is ready to take his wife back to matrimonial home. Mr. Ajay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant states that the wife (informant) is not ready to go to the matrimonial home as she was ill-treated on several occasions in the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that before the petitioner was granted provisional bail by this court, he had already remained in custody for about five and a half months. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, states that the informant is not being paid the amount as directed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in T.S. No. 130 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, controverts this position. This court finds from the order dated 25.4.2008 that the employer (Settlement Officer) of the petitioner was directed to deduct certain amount each month from the salary of the 3 petitioner and deposit in the specified bank account of the informant. Having heard the parties and noticing the entire aspects of the case as also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already remained in custody over five months, this court is persuaded to extend him the privilege of bail. The petitioner is already on bail. The order granting provisional bail, thus, is hereby confirmed. It is, however, made clear that if there is any violation of the order dated 25.4.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in T.S. No. 130 of 2007, the informant shall approach the court below for execution of the said order and in case there is continued disobedience, the informant shall have liberty to approach the court below for cancellation of the bail bonds of the petitioner. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )