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.)