IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45638 of 2008 1. Anand Kumar Singh 2. Shakti Bhushan Singh 3. Shashi Bhushan Singh 4. Chandra Bhushan Singh 5. Vani Bhushan Singh Versus State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 03. 17.08.2011 This is an application for quashing the order dated 09.7.2008 passed by Sri S. K. Panwar, Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Patna passed in Cr. Revision No.941 of 2003 by which he has affirmed the order dated 19.9.2003 passed by Sri R. V. P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Tr. No.437 of 1991/ 434 of 1990, G. R. No. 1044 of 1989 arising out of Maner P. S. Case No.99 of 1989 under Section 379 of the I. P. C. by which he has rejected the representation petitions filed on behalf of accused persons under section 317 of the Cr. P. C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Some dates are relevant in the case that is order dated 19.3.1998, 19.11.1998 and other dates. On 19.3.1998. Some clarification is there by the Trial Court that bail bond of accused Shakti Bhushan Singh, Shashi Bhushan Singh, Chandra Bhushan Singh, Anand Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh and Sant Kumar Singh were not cancelled and there was mistake in observing in earlier orders about rejection of their bail bonds. On 19.11.1998, representation on behalf of nine accused persons including petitioners is refused with observation that their bail bonds were earlier cancelled. According to learned counsel for the 2 petitioners, the same mistake was committed by the trial court as their bail bonds were never cancelled. Bhakti Bhushan Singh was only the accused whose bail bond was cancelled. From next date that is from 07.01.1999, representation regularly was being filed till 28.01.2001, but was being refused. Thereafter, there was no step taken on behalf of accused persons including this petitioner. In subsequent development, one of the co-accused remanded from another case and two others arrested, were allowed bail also, but petitioners never till filing of this petition. Now, further development is that petitioner nos.2, 4 and 5 arrested and allowed bail. Matter is pending for petitioner no.1 and 3 only. No doubt, mistake has been committed by the trial court, but petitioners’ mistake is that they left the pairvi after 16.4.2003 that has been considered in Revision No.941 of 2003 in the Court of S. K. Panwar. So, there cannot be said mistake committed by the Revisional Court, but at the same time, petitioners are entitled for some liberal view as mistake has been committed by the trial court also. Specific submission on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners left their pairvi in the case due to issue of non-bailable warrant against them. Now, only remedy left with them (petitioners) is to surrender and pray for bail raising all the points discussed above. With such observation this quashing application is disposed of. Vikash ( Mandhata Singh, J.)