IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33675 of 2010 RAJNISH KUMAR JHA son of Shawatambar Jha, resident of village- Shukhsena, P.S. Barhara, Dist-Purnia Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Dezy Devi daughter of Subhash Chandra Jha, resident of Mohalla- Mirchaibari, Ambedkar choke, Nagarpalika Ward No.2, P.S.and District- Katihar. ----------- 2 12.10.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.541 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 379 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance has been taken by the Court below under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Substance of allegation as set out in the complaint petition alleges torture, physical and mental harassment of the complainant at the hands of the petitioner - 2 - who is the husband of the complainant. It is alleged that not only the petitioner has caused physical discomfort to the complainant and her daughter but has also caused extreme mental stress on them and has completely failed in his responsibilities as a husband and as a father. It is alleged that the petitioner has also been using foul language against the complainant and has threatened the complainant and their daughter with dire consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner while denying the allegations as set out in the complaint, submits that the petitioner is willing for any adjustment and also for restoration of the matrimonial harmony between the parties. He submits that it is the complainant who is not willing to stay with him. It is contended that even at the stage of consideration of his prayer by the Court below the petitioner had expressed his willingness for restoration of the matrimonial harmony but the same was not positively responded by the complainant who herself has backed out from any kind of - 3 - reconciliation. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that having suffered at the hands of the petitioner since after the marriage took place on 24.11.2008, the complainant was yet apprehensive about the conduct of her husband and whether he would honour the commitments of being a good husband and a good father to his child as was being demonstrated before this Court. He submits that it is in this background that the complainant did not show any willingness at the earlier stage for return to the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that if the petitioner is ready to mend his ways and to discharge the responsibility of a husband and a father then she would be prepared to give another trial to their marriage, and would not be a cause for any disharmony. Taking into consideration that both the parties who are adults, have lived together and who also have a child from the wedlock, are prepared for restoration of the - 4 - matrimonial harmony, I am of the opinion that the relationship should be given another chance with a positive intent by both the parties before they take any final decision in regard to their relationship. In the circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant, let the petitioner namely, Rajnish Kumar Jha, in the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Court below, be released on bail for a period of six months from the date of production of the order before the Court below on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Complaint Case No.541 of 2010 subject to the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The parties in conformity with their undertakings would present themselves before - 5 - the learned Court in Seisen of the matter on 1.11.2010 and the learned court below after recording the commitment of the petitioner of keeping the complainant and their daughter with full care and dignity and of discharging his duties and responsibilities as a father and a husband, permit them to proceed for their matrimonial home. The Court below shall thereafter fix a date for the next six months in the first week of each month when both the parties shall appear to apprise the Court regarding the status of the relationship. If the petitioner, as per his undertaking before this Court satisfies the Court below of having discharged his duty of a good husband and a caring father in the next six months following, the bail granted by this Court shall stand confirmed. However, if the petitioner defaults and fails to honour his commitments, and the Court below is satisfied that the undertaking given by the petitioner was an empty formality to secure bail and that he has continued with the harassment and torture of the complainant - 6 - and their daughter, the Court below shall be at liberty to take steps to initiate proceedings for cancellation of his bail bonds on grounds of misuse. Before parting with this order, this Court would also like to put on record that both the parties shall always bear in mind the future of their daughter and their duty as a parent. I would also like to put on record that as the marriage between the parties is relatively recent, the learned Court below in seisen of the matter shall also make all efforts including process of mediation, if required and parties are willing, to bring about an amicable resolution of the dispute between the contesting parties. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)