IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.41214 of 2009 PRAMOD KUMAR Son of Sri Bhup Narayan Singh Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5/ 12.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as opposite party no.-2. The petitioner is the informant of Kotwali P.W. case no.393 of 2006 under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was earlier granted bail on 18.09.2007 vide Cr. Misc. No. 31817 of 2007 with certain conditions. The petitioner moved this court for modification in the condition, which was allowed to the extent mentioned in order dated 05.05.2008, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9386 of 2008. In the meantime, learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 03.09.2008 cancelled the bail bond and issued Non- bailable warrant of arrest. The petitioner preferred Cr. W.J.C. No. 1016 of 2008 for quashing the order dated 04.12.2008, canceling his bail bond and issuance of Non-bailable warrant of arrest. This Court by order dated 04.12.2008, passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1016 of 2008 observed that in case the petitioner appears in the court below on 08.12.2008, he would be allowed to remain on bail on furnishing bail bond to the satisfaction of the learned court below. Counsel for the informant, who is petitioner, submits that this Court had observed that in case petitioner appears by 08.12.2008 he would be allowed to remain on bail on furnishing appropriate bail bond. Further in paragraph 11 of this application, it has been stated - 2 - that the order was passed on 04.12.2008 and the court below has received the same on 08.12.2008 and FAX have reached the court below on 05.12.2008. Besides this there is some cutting on the Fax order. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit. He submits that in fact the Fax amount was deposited on 05.12.2008 and the Fax was received in the court of learned Magistrate on 10.12.2008. Learned counsel submits that as Fax communication was not received in court of learned Magistrate by 08.12.2008, opposite party no.-2 despite his willingness could not surrender. The Fax communication was received in the court of Magistrate on 10.12.2008. The aforesaid fact would be apparent from order of learned Sessions Judge. Heard counsel for the parties. This Court observed that in case the petitioner appears in the court below by 08.12.2008, he would be allowed to continue on bail. It was desirable that the petitioner should have approached this Court for extension of time period of surrender. However, it appears that petitioner surrendered the same day, when the Fax communication reached the court of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel submits that the cutting is not in respect of the date of order of this Court, but the cutting is in respect of putting the date, on which date the Fax was received in the court below, which was a bonafide mistake. It appears from pleadings that petitioner is continuing on bail and has not misused the privilege of bail, I do not find it appropriate to cancel the bail bond on the aforesaid ground, as petitioner - 3 - immediately surrenders on receipt of Fax message. The opposite party no.2 would co-operate in trial and would not take unnecessary adjournment. The application stands disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)