IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34772 of 2010 JAIRAM KARMKAR, son of late Mahendra Karmkar, resident of Village-Daripur, P.S. Azamnagar, District-Katihar… …..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Rinkee Karmkar @ Kanchan Karmkar, D/o Birendra Karmkar, Present address- Khajanchi Hat, Banglipara Maleria Office Ke opper, P.S. K. Hat (Sahik) Distt. Purnea, Permanent Address- Rinkee Karmkar @ Kanchan karmkar, D/o Birendra Karmkar, Village-Dariyapur, P.S. Azamnagar, Distt-Kathiar ….Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Bhola Prasad and Md. Musowir, Advocates For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rishikesh Ojha, Advocate ………….. 10 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party No.2. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 498-A, 341, 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On earlier occasion, vide order dated 5.10.2010, the petitioner was granted provisional bail which was extended time to time. The matter was heard on several occasions and husband and wife were directed to remain present in person and they were present in person on 30.03.2011. However, effort of rapprochement could not 2 bear fruit. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that since there is no possibility of petitioner and opposite party No.2 to live together, he is ready to pay Rs.1,000/- per month by way of Maintenance till the final order is passed in Maintenance Case No.277 of 2009 pending before the Family Court, Purnea. It is also submitted that petitioner has also remained in custody for about five months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisional bail earlier granted vide order dated 5.10.2010 is made absolute. However, as per his undertaking, the petitioner must deposit Rs.1,000/- per month in the first week of every succeeding month commencing from April, 2011 before the trial court. For example, the petitioner will pay Rs.1,000/- for the month of April in the first week of May, 2011. This arrangement would remain till any interim or final order is passed by the Family Court concerned in the Maintenance Case No.277 of 2009. The opposite party no.2 would be at liberty to withdraw the aforesaid amount so deposited. 3 It is made clear that the Family Court concerned shall take a decision without being prejudiced by the direction and observation made by this Court in this proceeding. This order would also not come in the way of the parties, if at any subsequent stage, they decide to live together. It is also made clear that if the petitioner violates his undertaking and does not deposit amount in aforesaid manner then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)