IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1449 of 2007 1. PANIA DEVI W/O SAKAL DEO SAHANI 2. RAJIA DEVI W/O BRAHMDEO SAHANI BOTH ARE R/O MAUDAH CHATUR, P.S. PATEPUR, DIST VAISHALI. --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. KAMAL DEO SAHANI S/O LATE RAMESHWAR SAHANI, R/O MANDAH CHATUR, P.S. PATEPUR, DIST. VAISHALI. --- OPP. PARTY. For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Md. Arif (APP) ----------- 03 05.08.2010 In spite of service of notice opposite party no.2 has not appeared to object to the application. Heard both sides. Petitioners are accuseds of the case and are aggrieved by the appellate order by which the appeal preferred by the complainant has been disposed of in the following manner:- “6. Considering the above facts and the provision of Law I reach on the conclusion that order passed by Sri R.S.Yadav, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hajipur on 16.9.06 in Misc. case no. 1/06 is not according to provision of law. Hence, it is, ordered that said order dated 16.9.06 is hereby set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed first of all he shall cancel the bail bond of accused Rajia Devi and Pania Devi and shall issue warrant of arrest against them and further he shall proceed according to the provision of section 443 Cr.P.C. As regard the complaint case filed by the learned Judicial Magistrate against these accused persons in respect of their bail bond, in my opinion the act of these accused persons regarding filing of bail bond does not come within the perview of provision of section 195 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Criminal appeal is hereby allowed with above direction to lower Court.” It appears that the petitioners (accuseds of the complaint case) furnished sureties/bailors in the light of order releasing them on bail. The 2 same was accepted and they were directed to be released on bail. The complainant made an application subsequently and brought to the notice of the Court that the sureties/bailors so furnished by the accuseds (petitioners herein) were fake/not genuine. Learned Magistrate instituted an enquiry vide Misc. case no. 01 of 2006. By the order impugned dated 16.09.2006, learned Magistrate has directed the accuseds to furnish fresh bail bond(s) and to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 200/- by accuseds (petitioners herein) to the complainant. It is the admitted position that petitioners paid the said amount and thereafter furnished fresh bail bond(s) which was verified and thereafter accepted. It is the contention of the petitioners that learned lower appellate Court mis-construed the provision contained in Section 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioners subsequently furnished sureties/bailors, which were on verification, found to be genuine and accepted, and also the fact that they have already paid the amount to the complainant, this Court is not inclined to go into the legality or otherwise of the order passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 3, Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Appeal no. 55 of 2006. It may be highlighted here once again that in spite of service of notice and appearance by the complainant in this proceeding through learned advocate nobody has appeared to contest/object to the prayer made in this application. Accordingly the application is disposed of. It is made clear that petitioners shall continue to remain on bail on the bail bond(s) which were subsequently furnished by them. 3 Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)