ORDER Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Earlier this petitioner had filed ABA No. 840/2004 which was disposed of by order dated 19.7.2004 by this Court. Subsequently on the Mentioning Slip. on 3rd August, 2004 it was observed that as the anticipatory bail of this petitioner was earlier disposed of by this Court with certain observations, hence either he may surrender and pray for regular bail on the basis of the observation made therein, in the Court below itself or he may file a fresh ABA in this Court itself. Consequent upon the order dated 3rd August, 2004 this ABA has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Vidya Bhushan Prasad @ Bidya Bhushan Prasad) has submitted that this petitioner stands on the similar footing as that of the other co-accused who has been enlarged on bail in ABA No. 669/2004 on 18.6.2004. 4. The allegation in the FIR is that Demand Draft in, question was passed by this petitioner (Vidya Bhushan Prasad @ Bidya Bhushan Prasad}, the then Manager of Central Bank of India now posted as Senior Manager of Monghyr Branch. It was submitted that Demand Draft is presented before the Bank and the Bank has to pay the amount of demand draft on demand to the payee after verification of the signature and code number as per the instructions contained in the manual of the Central Bank of India Limited Vol. 1. 5. The further allegation is that the Bank Draft in question was stolen and remained unnoticed for full one year and after one year the Central Bank has written a letter to the Regional Office which, in turn, sent a letter dated 29.10.2003 and thereafter on 5.11.2003 steps against the collecting Bank and customer for recovery of the amount were taken. In the said letter there was no allegation made against the petitioner. On this ground it was submitted that tills petitioner acted bonafide in passing the Demand Draft in question and he was duty bound to do so in absence of any information with regard to the advice or otherwise the Demand Draft in question mid also when the signature purportedly tallied with the specimen signature of the drawee. 6. On this ground it was submitted that tills petitioner acted bonafide in passing the Demand Draft in question and he was duty bound to do so in absence of any information with regard to the advice or otherwise the Demand Draft in question mid also when the signature purportedly tallied with the specimen signature of the drawee. 6. Considering all these facts and the lad that this petitioner is a Senior Officer of the Bank and his case stands on the similar footing of another co- accused who has been enlarged on bail by this Court referred to above, it is ordered that this petitioner also be released on bail in the event of his surrender/arrest within 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order on furnishing bail bond of Its. 10.000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Dhanbad iii connection with Bank More PS Case No. 54/2004 subject to the conditions ,as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr PC.