IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11279 of 2010 1. HAMID AKHTAR KHAN son of Late Ajeez Khan. 2. Arshad Khan son of Hamid Khan Both resident of Mohalla- Katra, P S. Bihar not Laheri, District- Nalanda. 3. Hamid Hussain Khan son of late Abdul Samad Khan, resident of Mohalla- Kashi Takiya, P S. Laheri, District- Nalanda. … Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 01.12.2010 Having heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rashid Izhar, learned counsel for the informant as with regard to the prayer made in this application for modification / clarification of the earlier order dated 23.2.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 1847 of 2010, this Court is of the considered opinion that such prayer is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the petitioners themselves have not given the clear undertaking as was envisaged in the said order. The petitioners were infact supposed to give their clear undertaking for being released on bail that whatsoever had been incorporated in Condition No. 2 of their agreement dated 18.10.2009, will be complied by them without fail. This Court does not understand the reservation of the petitioners or the objection of the informant as with regard to decision of Emarat-e-Sariya 2 inasmuch as the said part of the condition is only with regard to custody of the child. So far the agreement between the parties about fulfilment of depositing of the amount is concerned, it is unequivocal that whatever amount was sent by the informant in the name of his wife, the same had to be deposited in the name of child of the informant. Infact if computation of such amount had already been made by the police in course of investigation as is claimed have been done so by Mr. Rashid Izhar, the petitioner had to only deposit the same in the name of the child of the informant and file their undertaking before the court below for being enlarged on bail. That being so, this Court would give one more indulgence to the petitioners to comply the order of this Court dated 23.2.2010, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be however made clear that this would be the last and final extension of time and if the petitioners for whatsoever reasons would not comply the order of this Court dated 23.2.2010 in letter and spirit, they would not be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. With the aforementioned observation and 3 direction, this application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below through FAX if its cost is deposited by the petitioners. Kanchan ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)