IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21533 of 2009 DR.DHARMENDRA KUMAR, SON OF NAND KUMAR SAO, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RIKABGANJ; P.S. TEKARI; DISTRICT GAYA. ----- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 9.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 22.1.2009 the bail bond was cancelled on the ground that the complainant was not being maintained and allowed to stay in her matrimonial home by the husband and the in-laws. Learned counsel further submits that on 21.2.2009 the complainant was physically present and had stated that she is living with her husband peacefully. It is therefore, submitted that the order dated 22.1.2009 cancelling the bail bond was unwarranted. The submission made by the petitioner is correct. Therefore, there was no reason to cancel the bail bond on 22.1.2009 without giving notice to the petitioner and hearing him. Apparently on 15.5.2009 by the impugned order the petitioner moved the District & Sessions Judge, Jehanabad against the cancellation of bail bond. The prayer of the petitioner was that the bail bond has wrongly been cancelled and if he appears in Court to challenge the order he apprehends that he will be taken in custody. The complainant appeared through her counsel and opposed the prayer of the petitioner submitting therein that the petitioner after being granted bail was pressurizing her compromise and withdraw the case. It is said that he also brutally assaulted her. Medical report have 2 been produced to support this aspect of the statement. It has been submitted on behalf of the complainant that after grant of bail, the complainant has again been tortured by her husband and other family members and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order cancelling the bail bond. Whatever be the legal position with respect to the order dated 22.1.2009 the fact remains that the petitioner and the complainant were heard on 5.5.2009 by the District & Sessions Judge, Jehanabad and the District & Sessions Judge, Jehanabad was satisfied with the facts stated on behalf of the complainant. In the result, I find no illegality in the order dated 15.5.2009. The petitioner should surrender within a period of four weeks and pray for grant of regular bail. In the interim period, the petitioner can resolve the problem and if the complainant agrees to live with him, they can jointly file an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad. The petitioner and the complainant should be physically present before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad to state that they have compromised the matter, then alone will the petitioner be released on bail. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)