IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42729 of 2010 Sita Ram Choudhary Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- 4 29.6.2011 The petitioner prays for modification of order dated 11.11.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No.16799 of 2009 for relaxation in condition laid down therein. It appears that Barahat P.S. Case No.212 of 2004 dated 17.8.2004 was registered at the instance of the Bihar State Financial Corporation against the petitioner for non-payment of the loan amount. Thereafter the petitioner was granted bail by this court by order dated 16.12.2005 with a direction to pay the legitimate dues amount on negotiation with the Bihar State Financial Corporation. The court further observed that the petitioner would remain present before the learned court below on each and every day. It appears that the brother of the petitioner Jai Prakash Choudhary filed Cr. Misc. No.16799 of 2009 for cancellation of bail of the petitioner as he was not complying with the conditions mentioned in his bail order. This court by order dated 11.11.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No.16799 of 2009 directed the petitioner to comply with the direction issued by this court earlier and would not absent himself in the court below for two consecutive dates till three witnesses are examined in trial. Thereafter, the instant modification application has been filed for modifying the order passed in Cr. Misc. No.16799 of 2009. This court by order dated 3.1.2011 issued notice to Opposite party 2 KHAN no.2 (Jai Prakash Choudhary) and has lifted one of the conditions imposed on the petitioner by order dated 16.12.2005 passed in Cr. Misc. No.13134 of 2005 regarding not absenting himself in the court below for two consecutive dates at a stretch. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 3.1.2011 the Opposite party no.2 Jai Prakash Choudhary appeared. The petitioner submits that his father late Amichand Choudhary owned a rice mill in the name and style of M/s Ganga Ram Rice Mill. He died leaving behind six sons including the petitioner and Opposite party no.2. He submits that he was willing to pay his share of dues but the Corporation is not willing to accept it. Counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner and his father were alone liable to pay the dues of the Corporation and other brothers are not liable to pay the same. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as the matter involves disputed facts, I am not inclined to modify the earlier orders any further. It appears that more than six witnesses have already been examined in the trial. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned for redressal of his grievance. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)