IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8163 of 2011 MUKESH KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2/ 06/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner who is stated to be the husband, an accused under Section-498A and lesser Sections of Indian Penal Code read with Sections- 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was granted anticipatory bail for a period of six months only in Cr. Misc. No.39575/09 with an observation that if he filed an application for regular bail within that period or thereafter it may considered in accordance with law on its own merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are general in nature for alleged demands of dowry which are denied. The petitioner has also filed a divorce suit No.107/08 in the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Hazipur. The petitioner sought regular bail after this period of six months when matrimonial harmony could not be revived which has been rejected. He is in custody since 27.12.2010. The impugned order has been perused. It seeks to penalize the petitioner by rejecting his bail application only on the ground that he failed to 2 restore matrimonial harmony. There are no heinous or serious allegations. The order of rejection is in teeth of the guidelines laid down by this Court for grant of bail in matrimonial matters reported in 2006(3) P.L.J.R. 182(Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar) notwithstanding which orders of the present nature have also been deprecated in 2006(4) P.L.J.R. 342 (Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar). Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail upon furnishing the bail- bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) along with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Complaint Case No.2227/08. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)