IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31227 of 2008 RADHA PASWAN @ MANOJ KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 3. 21.8.2008 Heard. The petitioner was on bail and as per the submission was facing the trial. The bond of the petitioner was cancelled on account of his absence on 16.5.1998 and thereafter the petitioner remained continuously absent till he was arrested by the police and produced before the court on 19.11.2007. The court below dismissed the prayer for bail of the petitioner once on 19.2.2008 and thereafter the petitioner renewed his prayer before the court below and the same was dismissed by the impugned order. The court below appears labouring under a wrong impression of law that it does not have the power to recall its order once he has dismissed the prayer for bail. This Court could point out to the court below that an order which is final could not be recalled by a criminal court and the final order could be such as could decide the right of a party 2 or decide a particular issue at a very crucial stage of the trial or which could decide the proceeding or if that order could terminate the proceeding which could be final in nature. There could be orders which could be neither final nor terminating the proceedings and still those orders are deciding some issues important and meaningful in the proceedings. This Court could advise the learned Judge to go through the decision in Madhu Limaye Vs.The State of Maharashtra: (1977)4 Supreme Court Cases 551 for finding out as to what could be the meaning of a final order. Bail orders are never final because they do not decide any issue and they are orders under the facts of the case as regards the putting of restriction on the liberties of the person on account of various considerations. There could not be any bar if the court is approached with various petitions, and in one amongst such ten cases and the court may feel inclined, for various reasons, to direct release of the accused. As appears from the above facts relating to the case in which the petitioner 3 has remained in custody since 19.11.2007 after remaining absent for about four years, it is expected that the petitioner shall not remain absent even for a day in the court below. I direct the court below, i.e., Sri Om Prakash, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Masaurhi, Patna to release the above named petitioner from custody on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to his satisfaction in Punpun P. S. Case No.22 of 1993. The petitioner shall remain physically present on all dates of hearing fixed by the court in the matter. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)