ORDER : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. A joint compromise petition has been produced before this Court from which it appears that the parties have undertaken to live separately and they will not disturb each other in future in any manner. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Adityapur RIT P.S. Case No. 382 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1099 of 2014, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 366, 376, 385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Earlier the petitioner had moved this Court in A.B.A. No. 2395 of 2015, which, however, was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the fact that proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued during pendency of the anticipatory bail application. 5. The prosecution story in brief is that while the opposite party no. 2 was studying in BIT, Kolkata, she met with the present petitioner in June, 2011. It is alleged that the petitioner used to make phone calls to the O.P. No. 2 and on the guise that he is working in Indian Navy had developed friendship with the O.P. No. 2. Further allegation has been levelled that on 2.1.2012, petitioner had invited O.P. No. 2 to attend the birthday party of his cousin sister's son at Kolkatta and thereafter she was taken to an apartment, where she consumed cold drinks and thereafter taking advantage of her, petitioner is alleged to have established physical relationship with the O.P. No. 2. It is also alleged that the petitioner had taken indecent photographs of the O.P. No. 2 and on the threat of making the same public, he had committed rape upon the informant on several occasions. Further allegation has been levelled against petitioner of regularly making phone calls and threats that he would upload the photographs on Facebook. 6. It is the case of the petitioner as could be deciphered from the averments made in the instant application that petitioner claims himself to be the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and that the allegation of kidnapping and commission of rape is a concocted story. Petitioner has based his claim upon an affidavit. 7. On the other hand, it is the case of the O.P. No. 2 that the marriage was never solemnised with the petitioner. Petitioner has based his claim upon an affidavit. 7. On the other hand, it is the case of the O.P. No. 2 that the marriage was never solemnised with the petitioner. O.P. No. 2 and has further reiterated the allegations made in the FIR with respect to taking of obscene photographs and commission of rape by the petitioner on a threat that the photographs shall be uploaded in the Social Networking Site. 8. From the averments made by both the parties and from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, it is an admitted fact that the marriage of the petitioner was never solemnised with the O.P. No. 2 as there is no proof of marriage, which has been submitted by the petitioner save and except a purported affidavit which the O.P. No. 2 claims was on account of obtaining her signature on a blank paper. It thus appears that no marriage has been solemnised between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2. As could be gathered from the joint compromise petition, copy of which has been produced before this Court, none of the parties want to proceed further in the case and they have decided that they will not disturb each other in future and shall lead their separate life. 9. At this juncture, Mr. V.N. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that he shall prefer an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the compromise so effected between the parties so that criminal prosecution of the petitioner comes to a logical end. 10. Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has also accepted the proposal made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that O.P. No. 2 does not want to pursue the criminal prosecution instituted by her in view of the compromise, which has been arrived at. 11. Since the present application is related to grant of anticipatory bail, hands of the Court are fettered so far as the conclusion of the criminal proceedings are concerned. Be that as it may, since the parties have settled their disputes and the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further in the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, this application is allowed. 12. Be that as it may, since the parties have settled their disputes and the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further in the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, this application is allowed. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks from today and pray for regular bail, and in that event, he will be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Adityapur RIT P.S. Case No. 382 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1099 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Personal appearance of petitioner and O.P. No. 2 is dispensed with. 14. Let joint compromise petition, which has been filed before this Court, be kept on record. 15. Let a copy of the order be given to respective parties. Application allowed.