IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5245 of 2010 ATUL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SHIVENDRA NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, P.S. PATRAKAR NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA……………PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR………………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate, Kamal Kishore Singh and Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocates. For the State : Mr. U.S.P. Singh, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate. -------------- 7. 28.4.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant. The husband (petitioner) and the wife (informant) are also present in person before this Court. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 498(A) and 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the First Information Report is regarding demand of cash, vehicle and other articles and also of torture and second subsequent marriage by the husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after marriage the informant came to her matrimonial house. She was teacher in D.A.V. School at Arrah and later on after 2 much effort she was transferred to D.A.V. School, Patna. However, subsequently, despite efforts on the part of the petitioner she did not continue living at her matrimonial house and returned back to Arrah and got her job transferred there. It has further been submitted that the petitioner made efforts and persuaded the wife several times to come at her matrimonial house but the effort went in vain. He also took her to various tourist places so that her mind could change in favour of the petitioner but that effort also could not become fruitful. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father also developed cancer and he had died subsequently but the wife neither came to see him nor allowed the child to come and see his grand father. It is urged that since there was complete break down of the matrimonial relationship, a Matrimonial Suit No.229 of 2002 was filed under Section 13(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage. The wife had also filed a Maintenance Case No.146 of 2009. Lastly, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had already remained in custody for more than four months. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that it would be manifest from the First Information Report itself that the petitioner had subjected the 3 wife torture and made a demand of cash, vehicle etc and also he had remarried a girl and he is having a male child from the second wife. Though the wife has expressed her willingness to go with the husband, the husband is not willing. It is stated on his behalf that he himself has been subjected much torture by the wife and there has been complete break down of their matrimonial life as after 1999 there is no relationship of husband and wife between them. He has also submitted that he was not even allowed to meet his son and his son was not even allowed to come and see his ailing father, who died of cancer. The husband submitted that he had already filed a Matrimonial Suit as aforesaid for dissolution of marriage, which was earlier dismissed for default. However, the same has now been restored to its original file and number and wife has also filed a case for maintenance. It is further submitted that the husband is ready to give some amount as maintenance of to the wife till maintenance case is decided. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the wife that the same would not serve any purpose and the matter of maintenance would be raised in the maintenance case itself. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of 4 the case and the period of incarceration of the petitioner as well as the fact that after filing a case for dissolution of marriage in the year 2002, the First Information Report had been lodged in the year 2009, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner, Atul Kumar Singh, till 28.4.2010 by order dated 6.4.2010 is made absolute. Since the bail has been granted to the petitioner till today only and he has been released after furnishing the bail bond in the court below, let the petitioner remain on bail on the bail bond earlier furnished by him. However, the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of the trial in the court below. If he fails to remain present on two consecutive dates during the course of the trial without any reasonable cause being shown, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. The trial court is also directed to take steps for expeditious disposal of the concerned case in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any observation, finding or direction given in this order. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) 5