IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40486 of 2009 RAJESH PSAWAN, Son of Sri Dukhan Paswan, R/o village Barki Delhia Dularganj, P.S. Delha, District Gaya ….. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …. Opposite Party ----------- 8 24.02.2010 Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramashish, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. A.A.Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State. This matter was taken up on 26th November, 2009. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to keep his wife with dignity. Learned counsel for the informant also appeared and stated that wife is also ready to live with the petitioner. However, since the petitioner was in jail, he was granted bail initially till 21st December, 2009. The matter was posted on the aforesaid date with a direction that the husband and wife shall remain present before the Court. However, on the next date fixed, the husband did not appear but upon the submission of learned counsel that there was lack of communication, the matter was adjourned to 13th January, 2010. On 13th 2 January, 2010 the husband and the wife were personally present before the Court and orally expressed their desire to live together. However, both sides desired to file affidavit in this regard hence the matter was again adjourned for 27th January, 2010. The matter could be taken up on 28th January, 2010. On that day affidavit was filed on behalf of the informant but neither the learned counsel or the husband in person had appeared on that date nor was any affidavit filed on his behalf. However, again the matter was adjourned for 3rd February, 2010 with a direction that the husband and the wife shall remain present. On 3rd February, 2010 also learned counsel for the petitioner appeared but neither any affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner nor the petitioner was present in person, though the wife remained present. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner the matter was again adjourned to 10th February, 2010 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- However, again on 10.2.2010 neither any affidavit could be filed nor the husband was present and matter was again adjourned 3 on 24th February, 2010. Today also when the matter was taken up, the affidavit on behalf of the wife is on record, learned counsel for the informant as well as informant is present in person. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears but neither any affidavit in regard to the oral submission or otherwise has been filed nor is the husband present in person as per the direction of this Court on several dates. Learned counsel submits that he is ready to pay the cost but no instruction has been received by him. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that neither any affidavit has been filed nor is the petitioner present in compliance of order of this Court. It is further contended that petitioner has willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. This action suffers from the vice of mala fide as he, after his release on provisional bail, has deliberately disappeared from the scene. I find force in this submissions raised on behalf of the informant. It appears that after release 4 on bail granted for a fixed time period, the petitioner is deliberately avoiding the proceeding. Thus, this Court is constrained to hold that the petitioner’s conduct is such that he does not deserve bail. In the above view of the matter this Court is constrained to dismiss this application for bail. Bail granted vide earlier order dated 26.11.2009, which was extended till today, is not extended further. The Court below is directed to cancel the bail bonds and to take every steps to ensure that the accused petitioner is brought to the door step of justice. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)