IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4388 of 2010 MD.SALAMAT KHAN @ MD.MANGALA KHAN . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 10.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The ground for this renewed prayer for anticipatory bail is a subsequent compromise when the offences are compoundable. The impugned order of rejection is in teeth of the duty of the Court stated by the Supreme Court in (2008) 4 SCC 582, at Paragraph 6 with regard to compoundable offences as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the court, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today when he shall 2 be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/-(twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in connection with Complaint Case Number as C.R. No. 1119 of 2007, T.R. No. 1821 of 2009. Let this order be placed before the presiding officer who has passed the impugned order dated 22.10.2009. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)