IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9139 of 2011 RAMAN KUMAR MISHRA @ RAMAN MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Considering the nature and date of the order in Cr. Misc. No. 20489 of 2010, this Court is not satisfied from the pleadings at Paragraph-6 of the modification application to interfere. The petitioner contends that he is still willing to revive matrimonial harmony. That is a matter to be appropriately considered by the trial Court while dealing with any application for regular bail on his behalf. Any such application has to be considered by the trial Court keeping in mind that the primary duty of the Court shall be to encourage restoration of matrimonial harmony rather than to create marital dispute. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)