IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43598 of 2009 Shankar Kumar @ Shenker Sao, son of Late Sudeshwar Sao, R/o Vill- Lai, P.S. Bihta, District-Patna….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Usha Devi, D/o Jagarnath Sao, W/o Shankar Kumar R/o Lai, P.S. Bihta, District-Patna………Opposite Parties. ----------- 4. 16. 04. 2010. Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case no. 1192 C/07, in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 494 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, though he is the husband of the complainant and allegation of demand of dowry and torture is against him, but he was prepared to have one time settlement of the entire disputes with the complainant, but due to demand of exorbitantly high amount by the complainant the settlement could not be arrived at. By referring to Annexure-2 i.e. statement of the complainant recorded in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., it is submitted that the entire prosecution allegation against the petitioner stands falsified and contradicted. Learned counsel for the State as also the complainant have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the correctness of the 2 document as contained in Annexure-2, but has simply submitted that such statement was made on the advice of the lawyer of the complainant. Be that as it may, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner, namely, Shankar Kumar @ Shenker Sao, shall be enlarged on 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., Danapur (Patna) in connection with Complaint Case No. 1192 C/ 2007, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)