JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J.— The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole petitioner seeking clarification of the order dated 30.6.2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 144 of 2008 whereby a sum of Rs. 75,0001- (seventy five thousand) deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the said order being the surety money in R.C. Case No. 1 (A)/2003-D in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, VIIIth, Dhanbad to which the petitioner seeks refund of the said amount, as he returned back to India from U.S.A. within time framed by this Court after treatment of his wife and it was further prayed that the bonds executed by two near relatives of the petitioner may also be discharged. 2. The petitioner had earlier preferred a Criminal Revision No. 144 of 2008 against the order dated 16.2.2008 recorded by Shri P.C. Agrawal, Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, VIIIth, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 1 (A)/03-D by which the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to leave India and going to U.S.A. for a period of six months in connection with specialized treatment of his wife was turned down. Against the said order, the petitioner moved before this Court and after hearing the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel, C.B.I., this Court was pleased to direct by the order dated 30.6.2008, "the petitioner is permitted to leave India for six months and may take away his wife for the better management and treatment of her physical problems on the cash deposit of Rs. 75,000/- and the bond duly executed by two of his near relatives, who are citizens of India with the undertaking that he would return back positively by the end of December, 2008. He would be properly represented through his lawyer in his absence even during examination of the witnesses thereby proving all the relevant documents, failing to which the Special Judge would be within his competence to pass appropriate order." 3. It is evident from the record of R.C. Case No. 1 (A)/03-D that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. He would be properly represented through his lawyer in his absence even during examination of the witnesses thereby proving all the relevant documents, failing to which the Special Judge would be within his competence to pass appropriate order." 3. It is evident from the record of R.C. Case No. 1 (A)/03-D that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (seventy five thousand) vide Nazir receipt No. 38/2008-09 on 8.7.2008 at the Civil Court, Dhanbad with two sureties bonds of Surendra Pratap Singh (brother-in-law of the accused) and another of Abhiram Kumar Singh (nephew of the petitioner) which were accepted by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad. 4. I find from the order impugned dated 27.2.2009 that the learned Special Judge refused to release the deposited amount on the ground that no specific direction was given by this Court (Jharkhand High Court) in favour of the petitioner that the amount deposited by him shall be returned back to him after his return to India. It is evident that the petitioner had, after his return to India from U.S.A., filed a petition on 28.1.2009 for the release of the amount deposited by him as the surety. I observe that the learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the provisions of Part-VIII Chapter-I of the Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna adapted by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. Rule 267 of the Criminal Court Rules deals with heads of accounts which speaks, "The following are the heads of accounts in the public accounts under which the money received and paid by Judicial Officers, or under their order, is classified- a................. b............... .. c................ . d........ ......... e............... .. f.................. g................ .. h. Peremptory receipts, i.e. witnesses expenses, prisoners diet money, boat-hire and other peremptory receipts. Note-1. As the peremptory cashbook is no longer required to be maintained by District Magistrates, such receipts must, in the case of these officers, be entered in the General Cash-Book. Note-2. For payment of sums received under head (h) with Rule 270(c). Rule 270(c) under head (h) payments will ordinarily be made in cash by the cashier on his own responsibility. 6. Note-2. For payment of sums received under head (h) with Rule 270(c). Rule 270(c) under head (h) payments will ordinarily be made in cash by the cashier on his own responsibility. 6. It is relevant to mention that the direction made to the petitioner Tribhubhan Nath Singh @ Tribhuwan Singh to deposit 75,000/- (seventy five thousand) being the pre-condition as surety while granting permission to leave India for the treatment of his wife in U.S.A. was not the fine amount but the surety subject to repayment on fulfilling the conditions imposed upon him by the order dated 30.6.2008 recorded in Criminal Revision No. 144 of 2008. The condition was valid till his return- by the end of December, 2008 and this Court has reason to believe that the petitioner returned back within the said period as this fact has not been controverted by the Special Judge in the impugned order dated 27.2.2009. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the Rules discussed hereinabove formulated under Criminal Court Rules, let the amount to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- (seventy five thousand) deposited by the petitioner Tribhubhan Singh @ Tribhuwan Nath Singh through the Nazir receipt No. 38/08-09 on 8.7.2008 in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Dhanbad be released in his favour forthwith according to the Criminal Court Rules on his proper identification. He is discharged from the bonds. 8. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed in the manner indicated above.