IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24962 of 2011 Anup Yadav Versus The Central Bureau Of Investigation ----------- 03/ 18.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the CBI. Allegedly, petitioner got his release in a criminal case after obtaining forged acquittal order in his favour. It appears from annexure 2 to this petition that having similar allegation several co-accused persons have already been granted privilege of bail by another bench of this court and only fault of the petitioner is that he could be remanded in this case after ten years of the alleged occurrence. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither any notice nor any process was ever served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the CBI submits that full brother of the petitioner was co-accused of this case and he had full knowledge about institution of the present case. So, it would be presumed that the petitioner had full knowledge in respect of institution of the present case. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, let the petitioner, Anup Yadav, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum- Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, 2 Patna in R.C. case no. 70(S)/1996 subject to the conditions that one of the sureties must be family member of the petitioner and furthermore, petitioner shall attend the learned trial court in person on each and every date for the period of nine months and if he fails to do so on three consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)