IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10830 of 2010 Md. Shadab Alam, son of Md. Bahab, resident of Village- Madhepura Ward No. 11, Laheri Tola, P.S. & District- Madhepura………………………………….Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ………………………Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 26. 04. 2010. Heard Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Miss Gayatri Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/complainant-Bibi Shahanaz Bano as also Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 543/09 dated 23. 10. 2009, registered under Sections 498 A, 323, 307, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner happens to be husband of the informant. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the informant and in that view of the matter, they are living together as legally wedded wife and husband. The complainant/informant has voluntarily entered appearance in the Court through her lawyer and she supports the factum of compromise with the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, in the event of his 2 arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner, namely, Md. Shadab Alam, shall be enlarged on bail for the period of three months on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri Subhash Chandra, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 543/09 vide G.R. No. 1921/09, subject to the conditions under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. Once the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner is accepted, then the learned court below shall secure attendance of the informant/complainant and if the court below on proper verification/identification of the informant/complainant is satisfied about the bonafide of the compromise between the petitioner and the informant, then provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner for the period of three months shall be confirmed. However, if the court below is not satisfied about the voluntary compromise then in that case it would be construed that the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner has finally been rejected by this Court. In that case, petitioner would be obliged to seek regular bail in accordance with provision of law. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)