IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16097 of 2011 Baijnath Mukhiya son of Laxmeshwar Mukhiya, resident of village Purushottampur Purikh, Police Station Bihra, District Saharsa ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sunita Devi W/o Baijnath Mukhiya D/o Amin Lal Mukhiya, resident of village Brahman Toli, P.S. Nauhatta, District Saharsa …. Opposite parties ----------- 5. 3.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint case No.243C of 2009 for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner is one of the named accused in this complaint case being husband of the complainant with allegation of demand of dowry and torture etc. Submission is that disputes between the couple have already been resolved and they have started residing together. If, it is so, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of filing an application of compromise before the court below and in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks, let the above-named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like - 2 - amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Saharsa, in connection with Complaint case No.243C of 2009, subject to condition under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and one of the bailors should be father or brother of the complainant and additional condition to attend the court regularly till disposal of the case, and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates, without any reasonable explanation, the privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. Narendra/ ( Akhilesh Chandra, J. )