IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18746 of 2011 RAJU LAL BHAIYA & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 15.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. This petition is dismissed as not maintainable as learned Senior counsel Sri Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were on bail granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. Now, that the apprehension of being sent to prison arises out of the order of cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, by which he has also taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. The contention was that some of the accused persons who surrendered were remanded to custody. It was fairly conceded by the learned Senior counsel that the bonds of the petitioners have not been cancelled. Unless the bonds are intact, the presumption is that the petitioners are inherently in the custody of the court and if the court is not inclined to allow them to remain on the same bonds then it must issue a notice to them to show cause as to why their bonds should not be cancelled and they should be committed to custody. I direct that the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall first do it and only then would remand the petitioners to custody. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)