IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.49673 of 2008 ====================================================== Lala Prasad, son of late Bangali Prasad, resident of Village Sakshohara, P.S. Sakshohara, Distt. Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Suresh Mahto. 3. Bipin Kumar. Both sons of Ram Deo Mahto, resident of Village Sakshohara, P.S. Sakshohara, Distt. Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.K. Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K. Khare, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA) 2/ 30-08-2011 Heard. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner invoking inherent powers of this Court for quashing the order dated 22.05.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barh in Sakshohara P.S. Case No.1 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 31 of 2002, whereby a petition dated 08.10.2002 filed on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were accused in the aforesaid criminal case and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49673 of 2008 (2) dt.30-08-2011 2 were granted bail. They were released on bail on furnishing bail bonds with two sureties, but one of the bailor was a fake person, as he was already dead. He next submits that in view of the petition filed by the petitioner, learned Magistrate was obliged to act in terms of Section 443 Cr.P.C. For appreciating the points involved in the present proceeding, Section 443 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinbelow: “Power to order sufficient bail when that first taken is insufficient.-If, through mistake, fraud, or otherwise, insufficient sureties have been accepted, or if they afterwards become insufficient, the Court may issue a warrant of arrest directing that the person released on bail be brought before it and may order him to find sufficient sureties, and on his failing so to do, may commit him to jail.” From the materials available on record, it appears that opposite party nos.2 and 3 were granted bail and they were released on furnishing bail bonds. One Chandeshwar Mishra and Jichhori Mahto stood as their bailors. From the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate, it further appears that the aforesaid bail bonds furnished by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were cancelled and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 appeared in the court below. Subsequently, they were released on bail on furnishing fresh bail Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49673 of 2008 (2) dt.30-08-2011 3 bonds to the satisfaction of the court. The mandate of Section 443 Cr.P.C. appears to have been fully satisfied. Once the previous bail bond was cancelled and accused was granted bail afresh on providing sufficient sureties, then no further action was required. This Court does not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned. The application stands dismissed. Anjani/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)