Judgment 1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Advocate General for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.8.1997 passed by the learned Magistrate and also order dated 11.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani whereby and whereunder the order passed by the learned Magistrate has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court vide the order as contained in Annexure-1 in Cr. Misc. No. 19794 of 1995, dated 4.1.1996 and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was released on furnishing sufficient securities to the satisfaction of the Court below, It has further been submitted that the petitioner till date has not misused the privilege of bail. Learned Counsel further submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet and when cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was transferred for trial, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and made a prayer to allow him to continue on the bail bonds fornished by him pursuant to the direction of this Court granting him anticipatory bail but the Court below rejected his prayer and directed him to surrender within a week. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge in B.P. No. 493/97 and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 11.11. 1997 holding that after submission of the chargesheet, the petitioner should surrender and pray for regular bail. In other words, the learned Sessions Judge also directed the petitioner to get the matter clarified by the higher Court. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge noticing the cases of R.L. Verma V/s. State and others, BBCJ 1996 SC 87 and Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 667 : 1996 (2) East Cr C 588, passed the order impugned. 4. It appears from Annexure-1 that while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner this Court had not fixed any time limit and, therefore, the learned Courts below could not have treated the order passed by this Court as conditional one. 4. It appears from Annexure-1 that while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner this Court had not fixed any time limit and, therefore, the learned Courts below could not have treated the order passed by this Court as conditional one. It is true the when a time limit is prescribed either by the Sessions Judge or by this Court in exercise of power under Section 438, Cr. P.C. then the accused person has to surrender in the Court below after submission of the chargesheet and he has to make a prayer for regular bail but in absence of time limit fixed by the Sessions Judge or by this Court while granting anticipatory bail, the order granting bail should be treated as open order of bail to the petitioner during the trial. This question has already been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 . 5. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the Courts below have wholly erred in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to continue on the bail bonds already furnished by him pursuant to the direction of this Court as contained in Annexure-1. The orders impugned thus are not sustainable in law. 6. I, accordingly, allow this application and set aside the orders impugned and the petitioner is directed to continue on the bail bonds already furnished by him during the trial pursuant to the order passed by this Court as contained in Annexure-1.