IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13965 of 2009 SOHAN PRASAD @ SOHAN PRASAD GUPTA, son of Prabhu Narain Prasad Gupta, resident of Mohalla- Harmandir Gali, Jhauganj, P. S. Chowk (Patna City), District- Patna… Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Vihiya Kumari d/o Sri Ram Nath Prasad r/o Karbigahiya Road, Chiraiyataanr Pul, Near Masjid, P. S. Jakkanpur, District- Patna. … O.P. ----------- 5. 16.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the informant as also counsel for the State. Earlier the petitioner seeking bail for an offence u/S 498 A/34 I.P.C. had claimed that he is prepared to restore the conjugal relationship with opp. Party no. 2, his wife and on that basis this Court had issued notice to opposite party no. 2. Today, counsel for opposite party no. 2 has appeared and has filed a counter affidavit stating therein the reasons for the wife, opposite party no. 2 in not relying on such assurance and/or declining the offer of the petitioner wherein she has also expressed her reservation to live together with the petitioner. This court therefore cannot compel husband and wife, to live together under one roof, if they do not voluntarily intend to do so. Coming to the merits, this court finds that the 2 present criminal case is of the year 2002 but the petitioner had chosen to surrender only in the year 2009. The trial against him has already proceeded and three witnesses are said to have been already examined. Thus, considering the nature of allegations, the stand of the informant and the stage of the trial, this court for the present is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. Counsel for the informant however undertakes that the informant shall produce the witnesses named in the charge-sheet except official witnesses promptly and there would be no let off in such effort by the prosecution. It is this aspect of the matter relating to pendency of trial and its already being in mid way that this court even after taking note of the defiant attitude of opposite party no. 2 in not restoring her conjugal relationship with the petitioner is rejecting the prayer of the bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the trial court is directed that it must conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if the trial court finds that trial of the petitioner in the aforesaid period could not be concluded on account of 3 laches solely attributable to the prosecution, it may release the petitioner on bail by taking a undertaking by him that he shall remain present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)