Respect for judicial orders and the rule of law is paramount, and individuals must adhere to the terms of compromise and court directions.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. No body appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to oppose this application, though, opposite party no.2 has already entered appearance through a lawyer and has filed his show cause.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by an order dated 1.4.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2603 of 2010 (Annexure-1) by this Court in connection with Patlipurtra P.S. Case No. 118 of 2009 dated 21.4.2009 registered under Sections 498-A, 307,341, 323,354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. While opposite party no. 2 had prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid criminal prosecution, giving rise to Cr. Misc. 2603 of 2010, notice was issued to the present petitioner, who is the informant of the aforesaid criminal case. In response to the notice issued by this court, informant-petitioner herein entered appearance in that criminal case, and on intervention of this Court and on persuasion of learned counsel of the parties, matter ended in a compromise. Affidavits were filed by both sides in Cr. Misc. No. 2603 of 2010 stating therein that the matter has been compromised between them and they want to restore their matrimonial relationship. In view of the aforesaid compromise and stand taken by the parties, the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of opposite party no. 2 was allowed by the aforesaid order dated 1.4.2010 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 2603 of 2010. The aforesaid factual aspects were noticed by this court, while passing the aforesaid order dated 1.4.2010 and for ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced herein below:-

"The petitioner is husband of the informant. Though, effort of compromise made by the learned Sessions Judge while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner, had failed, but fortunately, in view of sincere endeavour made by both the counsel representing the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 and in view of willingness of petitioner and O.P. 2, the matter has been amicably sorted out before this court. The petitioner and opposite party no. 2 are physically present in the, Court and they have been duly identified by their respective lawyers. The petitioner and opposite party no. 2 have also stated before this Court that matrimonial relationship have been restored between the parties. They are willing to live together. In that view of the matter, in terms of compromise, petitioner is directed to take O.P. No. 2 alongwith him to his house and shall keep her and her minor daughter with ail dignity and honour. It is expected that O.P. 2 shall also try to have cordial relation with the petitioner. in the aforesaid back ground, the petitioner, namely, Maya Kumar Sharma, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No.118 of 2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Any of the condition mentioned in the compromise petition filed by the parties, if violated then that may be construed as misuse of privilege of bail. it is hoped that if cordial relationship between the husband and wife continues for some months, then they shall file a compromise petition before the court below regarding the present criminal case. Learned court below shall be obliged to dispose of the case expeditiously in accordance with law."

4. In the light of order dated 1.4.2010, opposite party no. 2 has been enlarged on bail by the learned court below and is still enjoying the privilege of bail.

5. Since, opposite party no. 2 violated the terms and condition