IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41430 of 2008 SURENDRA YADAV @ SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 12.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is submitted that the petitioner had come to this Court earlier in Cr. Misc. No. 31434 of 2005 along with five others. The application was allowed on 12.9.2005. Unfortunately in the order sheet granting anticipatory bail the name of the present petitioner alone at serial 6 could not be incorporated. This happened because his name was on the 2nd page of the cause title while the remaining five was at the first page and an erroneous impression was created that there were only five petitioners in the application. It is submitted that he falls in the category of petitioners 2 to 5 of Cr. Misc. No. 31434 of 2005 being one of the witnesses to the deed and there is no difference between him and the aforesaid persons granted anticipatory bail. It is apparent that the fault lay in the order of the Court and not on part of the petitioner. No useful purpose shall be served by the technicality of directing the petitioner to move an application for modification in the earlier application. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the State has no objection to the disposal of this application at this stage itself. Considering the aforesaid submissions in a complaint case registered under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 2 of the Penal Code, let the petitioner, abovenamed surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, when he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Banka in Complaint case no. 482 of 2003. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)