Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna to release the petitioner on his appearance on the execution of bond as provided under section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)and not to remand him to judicial custody without following the underlying spirit as contained in section 309 of Cr. P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was registered on 28.12.92 under sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act, 1988 against the petitioner and one Sri P.K.Goswami by Sri.N.N.S.Yadava, the then Inspector, C B.I., Patna alleging therein that co- accused Sri P.K.Goswami entered into a criminal conspiracy with the petitioner and others and sanctioned a loan of Rs. 87.83 lacs in favour of petitioner on the basis of bogus/false postal time deposits worth Rs. 64.69 lacs and the petitioner obtained overdraft facility to the tune of aforesaid amount. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and one Siri Sao, Sub Postmaster, Belaganj. The F.I.R. named accused Sri P.K.Goswami was not sent for trial. On the submission of charge sheet, cognizance of the case was taken. The petitioner moved this Court for quashing the order of cognizance but his prayer was dismissed in Cr. Misc. No. 10108/94. Thereafter the petitioner filed S.L.P.No.3968/99 before the Supreme Court against the order dated 20.9.99 passed by this Court rejecting the prayer of quashing the order of cognizance. But that too was dismissed on 15.12.99. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was never sought to be arrested during the course of investigation of the case and he was never found to be non-cooperative in the investigation and, therefore his detention in judicial custody at a post cognizance stage without the commencement of trial will not be legal and the direction to the court below be issued that when the petitioner appears before it he may be released on executing bond as provided under section 88 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I.has submitted that a nonbailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner and he is evading his arrest. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I.has submitted that a nonbailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner and he is evading his arrest. 5. Learned counsel appearing on be half of petitioner has cited a number of decisions of Supreme Court in support of his argument that law declared by High, Court in a case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is binding on all inferior courts and Tribunals, Supreme Court decisions apply to all pending proceedings, petitioner has got a right of his personal liberty etc. on which there is no dispute but then these points are not directly involved in the present petition. The fact remains that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case in which cognizance has already been taken, the prayer of petitioner for quashing the cognizance has been refused by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court and a non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him. The only prayer of petitioner is that direction to the court below be given that in compliance of non bailable warrant of arrest if the petitioner appears before the court below he be released on execution of bond as provided under section 88 Cr.P.C. On this point learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has relied upon a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Vishwa Nath Jiloka and Ors. V/s. 1st Munsif, Lower Criminal Court, Bahraich and another: 1989 CRI. L.J. 2082. In this case after discussing various provisions applicable to a complaint case it was observed that : "When an equally efficacious procedure is available for securing attendance of the accused in a complaint case, namely, obtaining bond with or without sureties under section 88 Cr.P.C, power of judicial remain under section 309(2) should not be used, otherwise there would be unnecessary infringement of the fundamental right of liberty". 6. The present case is not a complaint case. As stated above in this case an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner by the then Inspector, C.B.I. and after investigation charge sheet has already been submitted and warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. If the petitioner appears before the court below and applies for bail it will be for the court below to consider the prayer under section 437 Cr.P.C. and pass necessary order. If the petitioner appears before the court below and applies for bail it will be for the court below to consider the prayer under section 437 Cr.P.C. and pass necessary order. The court may release the petitioner on his executing bond with or without sureties. The petitioner will be remanded to judicial custody if he does not apply for bail or his prayer for bail is refused. The petitioner has not made any prayer for anticipatory bail in this application. I therefore find that in this petition this Court cannot give direction to the court below to release the petitioner on execution of bond as provided under section 88 Cr.P.C. 7. I find no merit in this application, therefore, in the result this application is dismissed.