IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34850 of 2009 Rajendra Mandal, S/o Mahantee Mandal, R/o Vill.-Atalkha Belhi, P.S. – Triveniganj, District-Supaul…….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Pulpul Devi, w/o Rajendra Mandal, D/o Khattan Mandal R/o Nirmali, P.S. Pipra, District-Supaul……Opposite Parties. ----------- 4. 12. 04. 2010. Heard Mr. Mahendra Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 as also Mr. D. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 927 C of 2008, registered under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was heard on 29. 03. 2010 and it was adjourned for 12. 04. 2010 with a stipulation that endeavour shall be made to arrive at a compromise between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 i.e. the husband and wife. It is submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 that in fact, efforts were made for arriving at a compromise and terms of compromise were arrived at, but due to rigid stand of the father of the complainant it finally failed, though wife was prepared to live with the petitioner as his legally wedded wife. In the aforesaid background, for a period of three months in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four 2 weeks from today, the petitioner shall be enlarged on ad interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Supaul, in connection with Complaint Case No. 927 C of 2008, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. In the meantime, if the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 resolve to restore their matrimonial relationship and inform to the court below by filing a proper affidavit about such resolution, then in that case ad interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner shall be confirmed. In case of failure, then after expiry of three months it would be deemed that prayer for grant of anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner has finally been rejected by this Court, and in that case, the petitioner would have to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail, if so advised, which shall be disposed of on its own merit. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)