IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8575 of 2010 MD.MASOOM @ MD.MASOM RAZA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 21.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with complaint Case No. 425 of 2009 in which cognizance has been taken under section 498 A of the Indian penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though he is the husband of the complainant and there is allegation of demand of dowry and torture, but now compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant and they are living happily as wife and husband. To buttress the aforesaid submission, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner bringing on record the copy of compromise petition which is annerxure-3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant also supports the factum of compromise. In the aforesaid background, let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today be enlarged on provisional bail for a period of three months on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M, Araria in connection with the above noted case, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. After furnishing the bail bond by the petitioner, the court below will issue notice to the complainant and would secure her attendance in the court - 2 - and thereafter verify about the correctness and genuineness of the compromise arrived at between them. If the court below is satisfied about the valid and voluntary compromise between the petitioner and complainant, then the provisional bail granted to the petitioner for a period of three months shall be confirmed. However, if the court below is not satisfied about the valid compromise, then he would record the reasons for the same and thereafter it would be presumed that prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner has finally been rejected by this Court and in that case petitioner would be required to seek regular bail in the court below. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman