FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT
INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Item 1.                         Reports to Stockholders.

The views expressed in this report reflect those of the portfolio manager only through the end of the period covered and do not necessarily represent the views of Dreyfus or any other person in the Dreyfus organization. Any such views are subject to change at any time based upon market or other conditions and Dreyfus disclaims any responsibility to update such views. These views may not be relied on as investment advice and, because investment decisions for a Dreyfus fund are based on numerous factors, may not be relied on as an indication of trading intent on behalf of any Dreyfus fund.

Dreyfus
Strategic Municipal Bond Fund, Inc.

The Fund

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dear Shareholder:

We are pleased to present this annual report for Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund, Inc., covering the 12-month period from December 1, 2011, through November 30, 2012. For information about how the fund performed during the reporting period, as well as general market perspectives, we provide a Discussion of Fund Performance on the pages that follow.

The municipal bond market generally advanced over the past year in response to positive supply-and-demand dynamics, improving credit conditions, and investors’ changing expectations of global and domestic economic conditions.While monthly variations in economic data were pronounced, the longer-term pace of U.S. economic growth has been relatively consistent at about half the average rate achieved in prior recoveries. However, a number of macroeconomic headwinds remain, including uncertainty regarding U.S. fiscal and tax policies and the ongoing effects of the European financial crisis.

In light of these factors, the U.S. economic recovery appears likely to persist at subpar levels over the first half of 2013. However, the nation’s easy monetary policy and a favorable resolution of the fiscal debate may prompt corporate decision-makers to increase capital spending, which could have positive implications for the U.S. economy and most states’ fiscal conditions later in the year.As always, we encourage you to stay in touch with your financial advisor as new developments unfold.

Thank you for your continued confidence and support.

Sincerely,

J. Charles Cardona
President
The Dreyfus Corporation
December 17, 2012

2

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE

For the period of December 1, 2011, through November 30, 2012, as provided by Daniel Barton and Steven Harvey, Portfolio Managers

Fund and Market Performance Overview

For the 12-month period ended November 30, 2012, Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. achieved a total return of 22.46% on a net-asset-value basis.¹ Over the same period, the fund provided aggregate income dividends of $0.57 per common share, which reflects a distribution rate of 5.82%.²

Falling long-term interest rates and favorable supply-and-demand dynamics continued to support municipal bond prices over the reporting period. The fund’s results benefited from a long average duration and its leveraging strategy, both of which enabled it to participate more fully in market rallies.

The Fund’s Investment Approach

The fund seeks to maximize current income exempt from federal income tax to the extent believed by Dreyfus to be consistent with the preservation of capital. In pursuing this goal, the fund invests at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds. Under normal market conditions, the weighted average maturity of the fund’s portfolio is expected to exceed 10 years. Under normal market conditions, the fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in municipal bonds considered investment grade or the unrated equivalent as determined by Dreyfus.

The fund also has issued auction-rate preferred stock (ARPS), a percentage of which remains outstanding from its initial public offering, and has invested the proceeds in a manner consistent with its investment objective.This, along with the fund’s participation in secondary inverse floater structures, has the effect of “leveraging” the portfolio, which can magnify gain and loss potential depending on market conditions.

Over time, many of the fund’s older, higher yielding bonds have matured or were redeemed by their issuers.We have attempted to replace those bonds with investments consistent with the fund’s investment policies. We have also sought to upgrade the

TheFund 3

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE (continued)

fund with newly issued bonds that, in our opinion, have better structural or income characteristics than existing holdings.When such opportunities arise, we usually look to sell bonds that are close to their optional redemption date or maturity.

Supply-and-Demand Dynamics Supported Municipal Bonds

Most financial markets were rallying at the start of the reporting period amid U.S. employment gains and a quantitative easing program in Europe. Investors grew more tolerant of risks, focusing more on underlying fundamentals and less on macroeconomic developments.These positive influences were called into question during the spring, when the U.S. labor market’s rebound slowed and measures designed to relieve fiscal pressures in Europe encountered resistance. Although these headwinds temporarily sparked a flight to perceived safe havens, municipal bonds remained strong across the credit-quality range, in part due to robust demand from investors seeking competitive levels of after-tax income.

Municipal bond prices also responded positively to falling long-term interest rates stemming from stimulative measures by the Federal Reserve Board over the summer. Meanwhile, new issuance volumes remained relatively low when political pressure led to less borrowing for capital projects. Instead, municipalities primarily issued new bonds to refinance older debt, resulting in a net decrease in the supply of tax-exempt securities. From a credit quality perspective, most states have seen their credit fundamentals improve along with the U.S. economy.While a number of pressures continue to burden the finances of state and municipal governments, many have made the difficult decisions required to shore up their fiscal conditions.

In this environment, lower rated and longer maturity municipal bonds led the market higher, while highly rated and shorter term securities generally lagged market averages.

Longer Maturities Supported Relative Performance

The fund’s relative performance was buoyed by a relatively long average duration, which increased its participation in gains at the longer end of the maturity spectrum. In addition, the fund benefited from overweighted exposure to high yield municipal bonds, as well as to bonds backed by revenues from municipal projects, particularly those issued to finance hospitals and industrial development projects.The fund’s returns

4

also were bolstered by bonds backed by the states’ settlement of litigation with U.S. tobacco companies. Finally, the fund’s leveraging strategy magnified the market’s gains.

These positive factors were partly offset by our ongoing efforts to upgrade the fund’s overall credit quality, which may have been premature as lower quality bonds outpaced their higher quality counterparts. Moreover, the fund encountered shortfalls among Puerto Rico municipal bonds, which are tax-exempt for residents of most states. Puerto Rico bonds suffered amid a weak local economy and rising fiscal pressures from unfunded pension liabilities.

Adjusting to Changing Market Conditions

We have been encouraged by recently improved data, but we remain aware that the U.S. economy is still vulnerable to uncertainty regarding future tax and fiscal policies. We expect market volatility to increase at times as lawmakers attempt to address these issues.Therefore, we have continued our efforts to upgrade the fund’s credit quality, and we have retained the fund’s emphasis on longer maturity municipal bonds.

December 17, 2012

TheFund 5

SELECTED INFORMATION

November 30, 2012 (Unaudited)

6

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS

November 30, 2012

TheFund 7

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (continued)

8

TheFund 9

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (continued)

10

TheFund 11

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (continued)

12

TheFund 13

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (continued)

14

TheFund 15

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (continued)

16

TheFund 17

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (continued)

18

TheFund 19

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (continued)

20

TheFund 21

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (continued)

22

TheFund 23

STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

November 30, 2012

24

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

Year Ended November 30, 2012

TheFund 25

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

November 30, 2012

26

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS

See notes to financial statements.

TheFund 27

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The following table describes the performance for the fiscal periods indicated.Total return shows how much your investment in the fund would have increased (or decreased) during each period, assuming you had reinvested all dividends and dis-tributions.These figures have been derived from the fund’s financial statements, and with respect to common stock, market price data for the fund’s common shares.

28

TheFund 29

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1—Significant Accounting Policies:

Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. (the “fund”) is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”), as a diversified closed-end management investment company. The fund’s investment objective is to maximize current income exempt from federal income tax to the extent consistent with the preservation of capital.The Dreyfus Corporation (the “Manager” or “Dreyfus”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY Mellon”), serves as the fund’s investment adviser. The fund’s Common Stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange Amex (the “NYSE”) under the ticker symbol DSM.

The fund has outstanding 1,860 shares of Series A, Series B and Series C, for a total of 5,580 shares, of Auction Preferred Stock (“APS”), with a liquidation preference of $25,000 per share (plus an amount equal to accumulated but unpaid dividends upon liquidation). APS dividend rates are determined pursuant to periodic auctions or by reference to a market rate. Deutsche Bank Trust Company America, as Auction Agent, receives a fee from the fund for its services in connection with such auctions. The fund also compensates broker-dealers generally at an annual rate of .15%-.25% of the purchase price of the shares of APS.

The fund is subject to certain restrictions relating to the APS. Failure to comply with these restrictions could preclude the fund from declaring any distributions to common shareholders or repurchasing common shares and/or could trigger the mandatory redemption of APS at liquidation value.Thus, redemptions of APS may be deemed to be outside of the control of the fund.

The holders of the APS, voting as a separate class, have the right to elect at least two directors.The holders of the APS will vote as a separate class on certain other matters, as required by law. The fund has

30

designated Robin A. Melvin and John E. Zuccotti as directors to be elected by the holders of APS.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification is the exclusive reference of authoritative U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. Rules and interpretive releases of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under authority of federal laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. The fund’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which may require the use of management estimates and assumptions.Actual results could differ from those estimates.

The fund enters into contracts that contain a variety of indemnifications. The fund’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown.The fund does not anticipate recognizing any loss related to these arrangements.

(a) Portfolio valuation: The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (i.e., the exit price). GAAP establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs of valuation techniques used to measure fair value.This hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements).

Additionally, GAAP provides guidance on determining whether the volume and activity in a market has decreased significantly and whether such a decrease in activity results in transactions that are not orderly. GAAP requires enhanced disclosures around valuation inputs and techniques used during annual and interim periods.

TheFund 31

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s investments relating to fair value measurements.These inputs are summarized in the three broad levels listed below:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments.

Level 2—other significant observable inputs (including quoted prices for similar investments, interest rates, prepayment speeds, credit risk, etc.).

Level 3—significant unobservable inputs (including the fund’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments).

The inputs or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities.

Changes in valuation techniques may result in transfers in or out of an assigned level within the disclosure hierarchy. Valuation techniques used to value the fund’s investments are as follows:

Investments in securities are valued each business day by an independent pricing service (the “Service”) approved by the fund’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). Investments for which quoted bid prices are readily available and are representative of the bid side of the market in the judgment of the Service are valued at the mean between the quoted bid prices (as obtained by the Service from dealers in such securities) and asked prices (as calculated by the Service based upon its evaluation of the market for such securities). Other investments (which constitute a majority of the portfolio securities) are carried at fair value as determined by the Service, based on methods which include consideration of the following: yields or prices of municipal securities of comparable quality, coupon, maturity and type; indications as to values from dealers; and general market conditions. All of the preceding securities are categorized within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Investments in swap transactions are valued each business day by the Service. Swaps are valued by the Service by using a swap pricing model which incorporates among other factors, default probabilities, recovery rates, credit curves of the underlying issuer and swap spreads

32

on interest rates. These securities are generally categorized within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The Service’s procedures are reviewed by Dreyfus under the general supervision of the Board.

When market quotations or official closing prices are not readily available, or are determined not to reflect accurately fair value, such as when the value of a security has been significantly affected by events after the close of the exchange or market on which the security is principally traded, but before the fund calculates its net asset value, the fund may value these investments at fair value as determined in accordance with the procedures approved by the Board. Certain factors may be considered when fair valuing investments such as: fundamental analytical data, the nature and duration of restrictions on disposition, an evaluation of the forces that influence the market in which the securities are purchased and sold, and public trading in similar securities of the issuer or comparable issuers. These securities are either categorized within Level 2 or 3 depending on the relevant inputs used.

For restricted securities where observable inputs are limited, assumptions about market activity and risk are used and are categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following is a summary of the inputs used as of November 30, 2012 in valuing the fund’s investments:

TheFund 33

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

At November 30, 2012, there were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

(b) Securities transactions and investment income: Securities transactions are recorded on a trade date basis. Realized gains and losses from securities transactions are recorded on the identified cost basis. Interest income, adjusted for accretion of discount and amortization of premium on investments, is earned from settlement date and recognized on the accrual basis. Securities purchased or sold on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis may be settled a month or more after the trade date.

(c) Dividends to shareholders of Common Stock (“Common Shareholder(s)”): Dividends are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Dividends from investment income-net are declared and paid monthly. Dividends from net realized capital gains, if any, are normally declared and paid annually, but the fund may make distributions on a more frequent basis to comply with the distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). To the extent that net realized capital gains can be offset by capital loss carryovers, it is the policy of the fund not to distribute such gains. Income and capital gain distributions are determined in accordance with income tax regulations, which may differ from GAAP.

For Common Shareholders who elect to receive their distributions in additional shares of the fund, in lieu of cash, such distributions will be reinvested at the lower of the market price or net asset value per share (but not less than 95% of the market price) as defined in the Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan.

On November 29, 2012, the Board declared a cash dividend of $0.0475 per share from investment income-net, payable on December 31, 2012 to Common Shareholders of record as of the close of business on December 14, 2012.

(d) Dividends to Shareholders of APS: Dividends, which are cumulative, are generally reset every 7 days for each Series of APS pursuant to a process specified in related fund charter documents. Dividend

34

rates as of November 30, 2012, for each Series of APS were as follows: Series A-0.274%, Series B-0.274% and Series C-0.274%. These rates reflect the “maximum rates” under the governing instruments as a result of “failed auctions” in which sufficient clearing bids are not received.The average dividend rates for the period ended November 30, 2012 for each Series of APS were as follows: Series A-0.266%, Series B-0.257% and Series C-0.248%.

(e) Federal income taxes: It is the policy of the fund to continue to qualify as a regulated investment company, which can distribute tax-exempt dividends, by complying with the applicable provisions of the Code and to make distributions of income and net realized capital gain sufficient to relieve it from substantially all federal income and excise taxes.

As of and during the period ended November 30, 2012, the fund did not have any liabilities for any uncertain tax positions.The fund recognizes interest and penalties, if any, related to uncertain tax positions as income tax expense in the Statement of Operations. During the period, the fund did not incur any interest or penalties.

Each of the tax years in the four-year period ended November 30, 2012 remains subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities.

At November 30, 2012, the components of accumulated earnings on a tax basis were as follows: tax-exempt income $8,370,654, accumulated capital losses $54,159,939 and unrealized appreciation $85,125,681. In addition, the fund had $140,003 of capital losses realized after October 31, 2012, which were deferred for tax purposes to the first day of the following fiscal year.

Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “2010 Act”), the fund is permitted to carry forward capital losses incurred in taxable years beginning after December 22, 2010 (“post-enactment losses”) for an unlimited period. Furthermore, post-enactment

TheFund 35

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

capital loss carryovers retain their character as either short-term or long-term capital losses rather than short-term as they were under previous statute.The 2010 Act requires post-enactment losses to be utilized before the utilization of losses incurred in taxable years prior to the effective date of the 2010 Act (“pre-enactment losses”).As a result of this ordering rule, pre-enactment losses may be more likely to expire unused.

The accumulated capital loss carryover is available for federal income tax purposes to be applied against future net realized capital gains, if any, realized subsequent to November 30, 2012. If not applied, $1,427,978 of the carryover expires in fiscal year 2015, $5,522,685 expires in fiscal year 2016, $20,261,695 expires in fiscal year 2017, $5,075,623 expires in fiscal year 2018 and $21,871,958 expires in fiscal year 2019.

The tax character of distributions paid to shareholders during the fiscal periods ended November 30, 2012 and November 30, 2011 were as follows: tax-exempt income $27,885,959 and $28,038,726 and ordinary income $329,400 and $128,474, respectively.

During the period ended November 30, 2012, as a result of permanent book to tax differences, primarily due to the tax treatment for amortization adjustments and capital loss carryover expiration, the fund decreased accumulated undistributed investment income-net by $199,839, increased accumulated net realized gain (loss) on investments by $8,084,079 and decreased paid-in capital by $7,884,240. Net assets and net asset value per share were not affected by this reclassification.

(f) New Accounting Pronouncement: In December 2011, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities” (“ASU 2011-11”). These disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a company’s financial position.They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition,ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial

36

statements on the basis of GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). ASU 2011-11 requires entities to: disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial statements; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. At this time, management is evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on the fund’s financial statement disclosures.

NOTE 2—Investment Advisory Fee, Administration Fee and Other Transactions With Affiliates:

(a) The fee payable by the fund, pursuant to the provisions of an Investment Advisory Agreement with Dreyfus, is payable monthly based on an annual rate of .50% of the value of the fund’s average weekly net assets (including net assets representing APS outstanding).The fund also has an Administration Agreement with Dreyfus, a Custody Agreement with The Bank of New York Mellon (the “Custodian”), a subsidiary of BNY Mellon and an affiliate of Dreyfus, and a Transfer Agency and Registrar Agreement with BNY Mellon Investment Servicing (US) Inc., a subsidiary of BNY Mellon and an affiliate of Dreyfus.The fund pays in the aggregate for administration, custody and transfer agency services a monthly fee based on an annual rate of .25% of the value of the fund’s average weekly net assets (including net assets representing APS outstanding). All out of pocket transfer agency and custody expenses, including custody transaction expenses, are paid separately by the fund.

Dreyfus has agreed, from December 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013, to waive receipt of a portion of the fund’s investment advisory fee, in the amount of .10% of the value of the fund’s average weekly net assets (including net assets representing APS outstanding).The reduction in expenses, pursuant to the undertaking, amounted to $567,891 during the period ended November 30, 2012.

TheFund 37

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

Dreyfus has also agreed, until November 30, 2012, to waive a receipt of a portion of the fund’s administration fee.The reduction in administration fee, pursuant to the undertaking, amounted to $127,002 during the period ended November 30, 2012.

The fund has an arrangement with the custodian bank whereby the fund receives earnings credits from the Custodian when positive cash balances are maintained, which are used to offset custody fees. For financial reporting purposes, the fund includes net earnings credits, as an expense offset in the Statement of Operations.

The fund compensates the Custodian under a custody agreement for providing custodial services for the fund. During the period ended November 30, 2012, the fund was charged $1,941 for out-of-pocket and custody transaction expenses, pursuant to the custody agreement.

During the period ended November 30, 2012, the fund was charged $8,650 for services performed by the Chief Compliance Officer and his staff.

The components of “Due toThe Dreyfus Corporation and affiliates” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities consist of: investment advisory fees $352,328, administration fees $2,131, Custodian out of pocket fees $715 and Chief Compliance Officer fees $3,318, which are offset against an expense reimbursement currently in effect in the amount of $48,281.

(b) Each Board member also serves as a Board member of other funds within the Dreyfus complex. Annual retainer fees and attendance fees are allocated to each fund based on net assets.

NOTE 3—Securities Transactions:

The aggregate amount of purchases and sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities and swap transactions, during the period ended November 30, 2012, amounted to $96,733,940 and $89,476,834, respectively.

38

Inverse Floater Securities: The fund participates in secondary inverse floater structures in which fixed-rate, tax-exempt municipal bonds are transferred to a trust.The trust subsequently issues two or more variable rate securities that are collateralized by the cash flows of the fixed-rate, tax-exempt municipal bonds. One or more of these variable rate securities pays interest based on a short-term floating rate set by a remarketing agent at predetermined intervals.A residual interest tax-exempt security is also created by the trust, which is transferred to the fund, and is paid interest based on the remaining cash flow of the trust, after payment of interest on the other securities and various expenses of the trust.

The fund accounts for the transfer of bonds to the trust as secured borrowings, with the securities transferred remaining in the fund’s investments, and the related floating rate certificate securities reflected as fund liabilities in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The average amount of borrowings outstanding under the inverse floater structure during the period ended November 30, 2012, was approximately $57,128,600, with a related weighted average annualized interest rate of .73%.

Derivatives: A derivative is a financial instrument whose performance is derived from the performance of another asset. Each type of derivative instrument that was held by the fund during the period ended November 30, 2012 is discussed below.

Swap Transactions:The fund enters into swap agreements to exchange the interest rate on, or return generated by, one nominal instrument for the return generated by another nominal instrument.The fund enters into these agreements to hedge certain market or interest rate risks, to manage the interest rate sensitivity (sometimes called duration) of fixed income securities, to provide a substitute for purchasing or selling particular securities or to increase potential returns.

TheFund 39

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

The fund accrues for the interim payments on swap contracts on a daily basis, with the net amount recorded within unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on swap contracts in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Once the interim payments are settled in cash, the net amount is recorded as a realized gain (loss) on swaps, in addition to realized gain (loss) recorded upon the termination of swap contracts in the Statement of Operations. Upfront payments made and/or received by the fund, are recorded as an asset and/or liability in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and are recorded as a realized gain or loss ratably over the contract’s term/event with the exception of forward starting interest rate swaps which are recorded as realized gains or losses on the termination date. Fluctuations in the value of swap contracts are recorded for financial statement purposes as unrealized appreciation or depreciation on swap transactions.

Interest Rate Swaps: Interest rate swaps involve the exchange of commitments to pay and receive interest based on a notional principal amount.The fund may elect to pay a fixed rate and receive a floating rate, or receive a fixed rate and pay a floating rate on a notional principal amount. The net interest received or paid on interest rate swap agreements is included within unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on swap contracts in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Interest rate swaps are valued daily and the change, if any, is recorded as an unrealized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations.When a swap contract is terminated early, the fund records a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the current realized value and the expected cash flows.At November 30, 2012, there were no interest rate swap agreements outstanding.

At November 30, 2012, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $507,769,519; accordingly, accumulated net unrealized appreciation on investments was $85,125,681, consisting of $86,536,256 gross unrealized appreciation and $1,410,575 gross unrealized depreciation.

40

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Shareholders and Board of Directors Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund, Inc., including the statement of investments, as of November 30, 2012, and the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statement of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement.We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30, 2012 by correspondence with the custodian and others. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. at November 30, 2012, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

New York, New York January 28, 2013

TheFund 41

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Unaudited)

Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan

Under the fund’s Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan (the “Plan”), a holder of Common Stock who has fund shares registered in his name will have all dividends and distributions reinvested automatically by BNY Mellon Investment Servicing (US) Inc., as Plan administrator (the “Administrator”), in additional shares of the fund at the lower of prevailing market price or net asset value (but not less than 95% of market value at the time of valuation) unless such shareholder elects to receive cash as provided below. If market price is equal to or exceeds net asset value, shares will be issued at net asset value. If net asset value exceeds market price or if a cash dividend only is declared, the Administrator, as agent for the Plan participants, will buy fund shares in the open market. A Plan participant is not relieved of any income tax that may be payable on such dividends or distributions.

A Common Shareholder who owns fund shares registered in nominee name through his broker/dealer (i.e., in “street name”) may not participate in the Plan, but may elect to have cash dividends and distributions reinvested by his broker/dealer in additional shares of the fund if such service is provided by the broker/dealer; otherwise such dividends and distributions will be treated like any other cash dividend.

A Common Shareholder who has fund shares registered in his name may elect to withdraw from the Plan at any time for a $5.00 fee and thereby elect to receive cash in lieu of shares of the fund. Changes in elections must be in writing, sent to BNY Mellon Investment Servicing (US) Inc., c/o Shareholder Investment Plan, P.O. Box 35803, Pittsburgh, PA 15252-8035, should include the shareholder’s name and address as they appear on the Administrator’s records and will be effective only if received more than fifteen days prior to the record date for any distribution.

The Administrator maintains all Common Shareholder accounts in the Plan and furnishes written confirmations of all transactions in the account. Shares in the account of each Plan participant will be held

42

by the Administrator in non-certificated form in the name of the participant, and each such participant’s proxy will include those shares purchased pursuant to the Plan.

The fund pays the Administrator’s fee for reinvestment of dividends and distributions. Plan participants pay a pro rata share of brokerage commissions incurred with respect to the Agent’s open market purchases in connection with the reinvestment of dividends or distributions.

The fund reserves the right to amend or terminate the Plan as applied to any dividend or distribution paid subsequent to written notice of the change sent to Plan participants at least 90 days before the record date for such dividend or distribution.The Plan also may be amended or terminated by the Administrator on at least 90 days’ written notice to Plan participants.

Level Distribution Policy

The fund’s dividend policy is to distribute substantially all of its net investment income to its shareholders on a monthly basis. In order to provide shareholders with a more consistent yield to the current trading price of shares of Common Stock of the fund, the fund may at times pay out less than the entire amount of net investment income earned in any particular month and may at times in any month pay out such accumulated but undistributed income in addition to net investment income earned in that month. As a result, the dividends paid by the fund for any particular month may be more or less than the amount of net investment income earned by the fund during such month.

Benefits and Risks of Leveraging

The fund utilizes leverage to seek to enhance the yield and net asset value of its Common Stock.These objectives cannot be achieved in all interest rate environments.To leverage, the fund issues Preferred Stock and floating rate notes, which pay dividends or interest at prevailing short-term

TheFund 43

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Unaudited) (continued)

interest rates, and invests the proceeds in long-term municipal bonds.The interest earned on these investments is paid to Common Shareholders in the form of dividends, and the value of these portfolio holdings is reflected in the per share net asset value of the fund’s Common Stock. In order for either of these forms of leverage to benefit Common Shareholders, the yield curve must be positively sloped: that is, short-term interest rates must be lower than long-term interest rates. At the same time, a period of generally declining interest rates will benefit Common Shareholders. If either of these conditions change along with other factors that may have an effect on preferred dividends or floating rate notes, then the risk of leveraging will begin to outweigh the benefits.

Supplemental Information

For the period ended November 30, 2012, there were: (i) no material changes in the fund’s investment objectives or policies, (ii) no changes in the fund’s charter or by-laws that would delay or prevent a change of control of the fund, (iii) no material changes in the principal risk factors associated with investment in the fund, and (iv) no changes in the person primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the fund’s portfolio.

44

IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION (Unaudited)

In accordance with federal tax law, the fund hereby reports all the dividends paid from investment income-net during its fiscal year ended November 30, 2012 as “exempt-interest dividends” (not generally subject to regular federal income tax), except $329,400 that is being reported as an ordinary income distribution for reporting purposes. Where required by federal tax law rules, shareholders will receive notification of their portion of the fund’s taxable ordinary dividends (if any), capital gains distributions (if any) and tax-exempt dividends paid for the 2012 calendar year on Form 1099-DIV, which will be mailed in early 2013.

TheFund 45

PROXY RESULTS (Unaudited)

Common Shareholders and holders of Auction Preferred Stock (“APS”) voted together as a single class (except as noted below) on the following proposal presented at the annual shareholders’ meeting held on June 8, 2012.

46

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT (Unaudited)

At a meeting of the fund’s Board of Directors held on November 5-6, 2012, the Board considered the renewal of the fund’s Management Agreement pursuant to which Dreyfus provides the fund with investment advisory and administrative services (the “Agreement”).The Board members, none of whom are “interested persons” (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended) of the fund, were assisted in their review by independent legal counsel and met with counsel in executive session separate from Dreyfus representatives. In considering the renewal of the Agreement, the Board considered all factors that it believed to be relevant, including those discussed below.The Board did not identify any one factor as dispositive, and each Board member may have attributed different weights to the factors considered.

Analysis of Nature, Extent, and Quality of Services Provided to the Fund.The Board considered information previously provided to them in presentations from Dreyfus representatives regarding the nature, extent, and quality of the services provided to funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, and Dreyfus representatives confirmed that there had been no material changes in this information. Dreyfus provided the number of open accounts in the fund, the fund’s asset size and the allocation of fund assets among distribution channels. Dreyfus also had previously provided information regarding the diverse intermediary relationships and distribution channels of funds in the Dreyfus fund complex (such as retail direct or intermediary, in which intermediaries typically are paid by the fund and/or Dreyfus) and Dreyfus’ corresponding need for broad, deep, and diverse resources to be able to provide ongoing shareholder services to each intermediary or distribution channel, as applicable to the fund.

The Board also considered research support available to, and portfolio management capabilities of, the fund’s portfolio management personnel and that Dreyfus also provides oversight of day-to-day fund operations, including fund accounting and administration and assistance in meeting legal and regulatory requirements.The Board also considered Dreyfus’ extensive administrative, accounting, and compliance infrastructures.

TheFund 47

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

Comparative Analysis of the Fund’s Performance and Management Fee and Expense Ratio.The Board reviewed reports prepared by Lipper, Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent provider of investment company data, which included information comparing (1) the fund’s performance with the performance of a group of comparable funds (the “Performance Group”) and with a broader group of funds (the “Performance Universe”), all for various periods ended September 30, 2012, and (2) the fund’s actual and contractual management fees and total expenses with those of a group of comparable funds (the “Expense Group”) and with a broader group of funds (the “Expense Universe”), the information for which was derived in part from fund financial statements available to Lipper as of the date of its analysis. Dreyfus previously had furnished the Board with a description of the methodology Lipper used to select the Performance Group and Performance Universe and the Expense Group and Expense Universe.

Dreyfus representatives stated that the usefulness of performance comparisons may be affected by a number of factors, including different investment limitations that may be applicable to the fund and comparison funds.The Board discussed the results of the comparisons and noted that the fund’s total return performance on a net asset value basis variously was at or above the Performance Group median and the Performance Universe median for each reported time period (except for one period within each group in which it was lower).The Board also noted that the fund’s total return performance on a market price basis variously was at, above, or below the Performance Group median and the Performance Universe median for the various reported time periods.

The Board also noted that the fund’s yield performance, on a net asset value basis, was variously above or below the Performance Group median, and above the Performance Universe median, for the reported time periods, and, on a market price basis, variously was at, above, or below the Performance Group median and Performance Universe median over the ten one-year periods reported. Dreyfus also provided a comparison of the fund’s calendar year total returns to the returns of the fund’s Lipper category average, noting that on a net asset value basis the fund’s return was higher in six of the ten calendar years (lower in four of the years).

48

The Board received a presentation from the fund’s portfolio managers, who described the fundamental and technical conditions at work in the municipal bond market, the level of volatility in the market, and the managers’ ongoing focus on mitigating downside risk in the fund’s portfolio. The portfolio managers also discussed the strategy implemented for the fund in 2009, quantitative risk management tools applied to overseeing the fund, the fund’s current structure to defend against volatility and to otherwise defensively position the fund’s credit posture. The portfolio managers also explained the fund’s performance relative to its duration and credit structure and the degree to which it impacts maximizing yield performance. The Board also noted the generally compressed spread among the returns of the Performance Group funds.

The Board also reviewed the range of actual and contractual management fees and total expenses of the Expense Group and Expense Universe funds and discussed the results of the comparisons.The Board noted that the fund’s contractual management fee was above the Expense Group median, the fund’s actual management fee was above the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median, and the fund’s actual total expenses were above the Expense Group median and below the Expense Universe median. A Dreyfus representative noted that the undertaking by Dreyfus to waive receipt of .10% of the fund’s investment advisory fee would be extended through May 31, 2013.

Dreyfus representatives reviewed with the Board the management or investment advisory fees (1) paid by funds advised or administered by Dreyfus that are in the same Lipper category as the fund and (2) paid to Dreyfus or the Dreyfus-affiliated primary employer of the fund’s primary portfolio manager(s) for advising any separate accounts and/or other types of client portfolios that are considered to have similar investment strategies and policies as the fund (the “Similar Clients”), and explained the nature of the Similar Clients.They discussed differences in fees paid and the relationship of the fees paid in light of any differences in the services provided and other relevant factors.The Board considered the relevance of the fee information provided for the Similar Clients to evaluate the appropriateness and reasonableness of the fund’s management fee.

TheFund 49

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

Analysis of Profitability and Economies of Scale. Dreyfus representatives reviewed the expenses allocated and profit received by Dreyfus and the resulting profitability percentage for managing the fund and the aggregate profitability percentage to Dreyfus of managing the funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, and the method used to determine the expenses and profit. The Board concluded that the profitability results were not unreasonable, given the services rendered and service levels provided by Dreyfus. The Board also had been provided with information prepared by an independent consulting firm regarding Dreyfus’ approach to allocating costs to, and determining the profitability of, individual funds and the entire Dreyfus fund complex.The consulting firm also had analyzed where any economies of scale might emerge in connection with the management of a fund.

The Board’s counsel stated that the Board should consider the profitability analysis (1) as part of the evaluation of whether the fees under the Agreement bear a reasonable relationship to the mix of services provided by Dreyfus, including the nature, extent and quality of such services, and (2) in light of the relevant circumstances for the fund and the extent to which economies of scale would be realized if the fund grows and whether fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of fund shareholders. Dreyfus representatives also noted that, as a result of shared and allocated costs among funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, the extent of economies of scale could depend substantially on the level of assets in the complex as a whole, so that increases and decreases in complex-wide assets can affect potential economies of scale in a manner that is disproportionate to, or even in the opposite direction from, changes in the fund’s asset level.The Board also considered potential benefits to Dreyfus from acting as investment adviser and noted that there were no soft dollar arrangements in effect for trading the fund’s investments.

At the conclusion of these discussions, the Board agreed that it had been furnished with sufficient information to make an informed business decision with respect to the renewal of the Agreement. Based on the discussions and considerations as described above, the Board concluded and determined as follows.

• The Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by Dreyfus are adequate and appropriate.

50

• The Board was satisfied with the fund’s performance, in light of the considerations described above.

• The Board concluded that the fee paid to Dreyfus was reasonable in light of the considerations described above.

• The Board determined that the economies of scale which may accrue to Dreyfus and its affiliates in connection with the management of the fund had been adequately considered by Dreyfus in connection with the fee rate charged to the fund pursuant to the Agreement and that, to the extent in the future it were determined that material economies of scale had not been shared with the fund, the Board would seek to have those economies of scale shared with the fund.

In evaluating the Agreement, the Board considered these conclusions and determinations and also relied on its previous knowledge, gained through meetings and other interactions with Dreyfus and its affiliates, of the fund and the services provided to the fund by Dreyfus.The Board also relied on information received on a routine and regular basis throughout the year relating to the operations of the fund and the investment management and other services provided under the Agreement, including information on the investment performance of the fund in comparison to similar mutual funds and benchmark performance indices; general market outlook as applicable to the fund; and compliance reports. In addition, it should be noted that the Board’s consideration of the contractual fee arrangements for this fund had the benefit of a number of years of reviews of prior or similar agreements during which lengthy discussions took place between the Board and Dreyfus representatives. Certain aspects of the arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and the Board’s conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of the same or similar arrangements in prior years. The Board determined that renewal of the Agreement for the ensuing year was in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders.

TheFund 51

BOARD MEMBERS INFORMATION (Unaudited)

52

TheFund 53

BOARD MEMBERS INFORMATION (Unaudited) (continued)

54

OFFICERS OF THE FUND (Unaudited)

TheFund 55

OFFICERS OF THE FUND (Unaudited) (continued)

56

OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund, Inc.

200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166

TheFund 57

The Registrant has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the Registrant's principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions.  There have been no amendments to, or waivers in connection with, the Code of Ethics during the period covered by this Report.

Item 3.             Audit Committee Financial Expert.

The Registrant's Board has determined that Ehud Houminer, a member of the Audit Committee of the Board, is an audit committee financial expert as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").   Ehud Houminer is "independent" as defined by the SEC for purposes of audit committee financial expert determinations.

Item 4.             Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

(a)  Audit Fees.  The aggregate fees billed for each of the last two fiscal years (the "Reporting Periods") for professional services rendered by the Registrant's principal accountant (the "Auditor") for the audit of the Registrant's annual financial statements or services that are normally provided by the Auditor in connection with the statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for the Reporting Periods, were $30,312 in 2011 and $30,015 in 2012.

(b)  Audit-Related Fees. The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for assurance and related services by the Auditor that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the Registrant's financial statements and are not reported under paragraph (a) of this Item 4 were $46,082 in 2011 and $52,884 in 2012. These services consisted of one or more of the following: (i) agreed upon procedures related to compliance with Internal Revenue Code section 817(h), (ii) security counts required by Rule 17f-2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, (iii) advisory services as to the accounting or disclosure treatment of Registrant transactions or events, (iv) advisory services to the accounting or disclosure treatment of the actual or potential impact to the Registrant of final or proposed rules, standards or interpretations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Boards or other regulatory or standard-setting bodies and (v) agreed upon procedures in evaluating compliance by the Fund with provisions of the Fund’s articles supplementary, creating the series of auction rate preferred stock.

The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for non-audit assurance and related services by the Auditor to the Registrant's investment adviser (not including any sub-investment adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser), and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the Registrant ("Service Affiliates"), that were reasonably related to the performance of the annual audit of the Service Affiliate, which required pre-approval by the Audit Committee were $0 in 2011 and $0 in 2012.

(c)  Tax Fees.  The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for professional services rendered by the Auditor for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning ("Tax Services") were $2,460 in 2011 and $4,382 in 2012. These services consisted of: (i) review or preparation of U.S. federal, state, local and excise tax returns; (ii) U.S. federal, state and local tax planning, advice and assistance regarding statutory, regulatory or administrative developments, and (iii) tax advice regarding tax qualification matters and/or treatment of various financial instruments held or proposed to be acquired or held. The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for Tax Services by the Auditor to Service Affiliates, which required pre-approval by the Audit Committee were $0 in 2011 and $0 in 2012.

The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for Non-Audit Services by the Auditor to Service Affiliates, other than the services reported in paragraphs (b) through (c) of this Item, which required pre-approval by the Audit Committee, were  $0 in 2011 and $200,000 in 2012. 

(e)(1) Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures. The Registrant's Audit Committee has established policies and procedures (the "Policy") for pre-approval (within specified fee limits) of the Auditor's engagements for non-audit services to the Registrant and Service Affiliates without specific case-by-case consideration. The pre-approved services in the Policy can include pre-approved audit services, pre-approved audit-related services, pre-approved tax services and pre-approved all other services.  Pre-approval considerations include whether the proposed services are compatible with maintaining the Auditor's independence.  Pre-approvals pursuant to the Policy are considered annually.

(e)(2) Note: None of the services described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this Item 4 were approved by the Audit Committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(f) None of the hours expended on the principal accountant's engagement to audit the registrant's financial statements for the most recent fiscal year were attributed to work performed by persons other than the principal account's full-time, permanent employees.

Non-Audit Fees. The aggregate non-audit fees billed by the Auditor for services rendered to the Registrant, and rendered to Service Affiliates, for the Reporting Periods were $19,415,177 in 2011 and $50,404,978 in 2012. 

Auditor Independence. The Registrant's Audit Committee has considered whether the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to Service Affiliates, which were not pre-approved (not requiring pre-approval), is compatible with maintaining the Auditor's independence.

Item 5.             Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.

The Registrant has a separately-designated standing Audit Committee established in accordance with Section 3(a) (58) (A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, consisting of all of the non-interested Board members, who are: Richard C. Leone, Joseph S. DiMartino,  Hodding Carter III, Joni Evans, Ehud Houminer, Hans C. Mautner, Robin A. Melvin, Burton N. Wallack, and John E. Zuccotti.       

Item 6.             Investments.

(a)                    Not applicable.

Item 7.             Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

                        None

Item 8.             Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

(a) (1) The following information is as of January 30, 2013, the date of the filing of this report:

          Daniel A. Barton and Steven Harvey manage the Registrant.

Portfolio Managers. The Manager manages the Fund's portfolio of investments in accordance with the stated policies of the Fund, subject to the approval of the Fund's Board members.  The Manager is responsible for investment decisions and provides the Fund with portfolio managers who are authorized by the Fund's Board to execute purchases and sales of securities.  The Fund's portfolio managers are Daniel Barton and Steven Harvey.  The Manager also maintains a research department with a professional staff of portfolio managers and securities analysts who provide research services for the Fund and for other funds advised by the Manager.

Portfolio Manager Compensation.  The portfolio managers' compensation is comprised primarily of a market-based salary and an incentive compensation plan (annual and long term).  Each Fund's portfolio managers are compensated by Dreyfus or its affiliates and not by the Fund.  Funding for the Standish Mellon Asset Management Company LLC (Standish) Incentive Plan is through a pre-determined fixed percentage of overall company profitability.  Therefore, all bonus awards are based initially on Standish's overall performance as opposed to the performance of a single product or group.  All investment professionals are eligible to receive incentive awards.  Cash awards are payable in the February month end pay of the following year.  Most of the awards granted have some portion deferred for three years in the form of deferred cash, The Bank of New York Mellon equity, investment vehicle (consisting of investments in a  range of Standish Products), or a combination of the above. Individual awards for portfolio managers are discretionary, based on both benchmarks and peer comparisons over one year, three year and five year periods.  Also considered in determining individual awards are team participation and general contributions to Standish.  Individual objectives and goals established at the beginning of each calendar year and are taken into account. 

Portfolio managers whose compensation exceeds certain levels may elect to defer portions of their base salaries and/or incentive compensation pursuant to BNY Mellon's Elective Deferred Compensation Plan. 

Additional Information About Portfolio Managers.  The following table lists the number and types of other accounts advised by the Fund’s primary portfolio manager and assets under management in those accounts as of the end of the Fund’s fiscal year:

None of the funds or accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.

            The dollar range of Fund shares beneficially owned by the primary portfolio managers is as follows as of the end of the Fund’s fiscal year:

Potential conflicts of interest may arise because of Dreyfus’ management of the Fund and Other Accounts.  For example, conflicts of interest may arise with both the aggregation and allocation of securities transactions and allocation of limited investment opportunities, as Dreyfus may be perceived as causing accounts it manages to participate in an offering to increase Dreyfus’ overall allocation of securities in that offering, or to increase Dreyfus’ ability to participate in future offerings by the same underwriter or issuer.  Allocations of bunched trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially filled due to limited availability and allocation of investment opportunities generally, could raise a potential conflict of interest, as Dreyfus may have an incentive to allocate securities that are expected to increase in value to preferred accounts.  Initial public offerings, in particular, are frequently of very limited availability.  Additionally, portfolio managers may be perceived to have a conflict of interest if there are a large number of Other Accounts, in addition to the Fund, that they are managing on behalf of Dreyfus.   Dreyfus periodically reviews each portfolio manager’s overall responsibilities to ensure that he or she is able to allocate the necessary time and resources to effectively manage the Fund.  In addition, Dreyfus could be viewed as having a conflict of interest to the extent that Dreyfus or its affiliates and/or portfolio managers have a materially larger investment in Other Accounts than their investment in the Fund.

Other Accounts may have investment objectives, strategies and risks that differ from those of the Fund.  For these or other reasons, the portfolio manager may purchase different securities for the Fund and the Other Accounts, and the performance of securities purchased for the Fund may vary from the performance of securities purchased for Other Accounts.  The portfolio manager may place transactions on behalf of Other Accounts that are directly or indirectly contrary to investment decisions made for the Fund, which could have the potential to adversely impact the Fund, depending on market conditions.

A potential conflict of interest may be perceived to arise if transactions in one account closely follow related transactions in another account, such as when a purchase increases the value of securities previously purchased by the other account, or when a sale in one account lowers the sale price received in a sale by a second account. 

            Dreyfus’ goal is to provide high quality investment services to all of its clients, while meeting Dreyfus’ fiduciary obligation to treat all clients fairly.  Dreyfus has adopted and implemented policies and procedures, including brokerage and trade allocation policies and procedures that it believes address the conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients.  In addition, Dreyfus monitors a variety of areas, including compliance with Fund guidelines, the allocation of IPOs, and compliance with the firm’s Code of Ethics.  Furthermore, senior investment and business personnel at Dreyfus periodically review the performance of the portfolio managers for Dreyfus-managed funds.

Item 9.             Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Companies and Affiliated Purchasers.

                         None

Item 10.           Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

Item 11.           Controls and Procedures.

(a)        The Registrant's principal executive and principal financial officers have concluded, based on their evaluation of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this report, that the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant on Form N-CSR is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the required time periods and that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant in the reports that it files or submits on Form N-CSR is accumulated and communicated to the Registrant's management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

(b)        There were no changes to the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 

Item 12.           Exhibits.

(a)(1)   Code of ethics referred to in Item 2.

(a)(2)   Certifications of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

(a)(3)   Not applicable.

(b)        Certification of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

DREYFUS STRATEGIC MUNICIPAL BOND FUND, INC.

EXHIBIT INDEX

(a)(1)   Code of ethics referred to in Item 2.

(a)(2)   Certifications of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.  (EX-99.CERT)

(b)        Certification of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.  (EX-99.906CERT)

[INSERT CODE OF ETHICS]