IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35491 of 2010 UPENDRA KUMAR YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 15.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. Petitioner, Upendra Kumar Yadav apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. C 494 of 2009 registered under section 498A, 379, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears from the order of learned Sessions Judge that the complainant had appeared before him and accepted the factum of compromise but in spite of that, learned Sessions Judge disposed of the bail petition of the petitioner without giving him the privilege of anticipatory bail rather learned Sessions Judge has given only a direction to the court below to consider the regular bail petition of the petitioner. In my view, when the compromise had already taken place between the parties and the complainant frankly accepted the factum of compromise before the Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this anticipatory bail petition is allowed. In 2 the event of arrest/surrender within 30 days from receipt of the order, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Complaint Case No. C 494 of 2009 to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Motihari subject to condition as laid down u/S 438(2) of the Cr.P.C, AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)