IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1786 of 2010 SATYENDRA KUMAR, son of Shri Yamuna Goswami, resident of village Haranichak, Mahuli Tola, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 24.2.2010 Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the informant as also the State. The husband petitioner while seeking anticipatory bail for offence under section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has somewhat a readymade answer that he cannot live with the informant on account of differences between them. He, therefore, has offered to his counsel that he would be ready to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month till the marriage subsists. Counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.No.2 on instruction submits that now when there is another lady in the life of the petitioner, the informant herself would not be in a position to adjust with the petitioner. Counsel, therefore, submits that the informant is prepared to accept a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of maintenance till the 2 matter is resolved or any appropriate order is passed by the matrimonial court. Considering almost agreed terms and conditions as indicated above, this Court would direct the petitioner, Satyendra Kumar, to surrender within a period of six weeks from today and if the petitioner would pay arrears from the date of filing of the F.I.R. i.e. 10.9.2008 by depositing the entire amount of Rs. 90,000/- in one lump sum for the period of September, 2008 to February, 2010 @ 5000/- per month through a Bank draft in the name of the informant, he would be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Phulwarisharif P.S.Case No. 387/2008, after obtaining a written undertaking that for the month March, 2010 onwards the petitioner will keep on punctually paying the amount of Rs. 5000/- per month by every 10th of the successive month till the marriage subsists and failure to do so will entail the consequence of cancellation of his bail and also subject to 3 the other conditions as laid down u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. It is made clear that this arrangement shall continue till the marriage of the petitioner with the informant subsists and any default in monthly payment to the informant as directed above would automatically lead to cancellation of the bail of the petitioner. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/