ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the state. 2. Petitioners are father and son. They were made accused in a case lodged under section 406 of the Penal Code at the instance of the complainant alleging therein that certain amount was paid to them for securing admission of his son in an Engineering Institution in Bangalore. In spite of receiving the amount the accused failed to get his son admitted in the said Institution. On demand the amount was not paid back. On conclusion of enquiry the cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate in connection with Complaint Case No. 2260 (C) of 2009 and processes were directed to be issued. The petitioners approached for grant of anticipatory bail. By different orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge and this Court they were released on anticipatory bail with certain conditions. It is the case of the petitioners that in the light of the order of this Court the amount/instalments towards payment of the amount is being paid to and received by them regularly inasmuch as the entire amount, as on today, has been paid to the complainant. The petitioners, in such circumstance, made an application for dispensing with their attendance in the proceeding under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’). The said application was rejected by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna by order dated 6.01.2012 primarily on the ground that the petitioners have been privileged with bail and as such the said application was not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is a Cashier in the Union Bank of India, Boring Road Branch where only three staffs are posted. He is, therefore, awfully busy in connection with the discharge of his official function. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he is serving in a private company in Bangalore. In such circumstances, they approached the Court for dispensing them from their personal appearance. Learned counsel relying on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Amar Nath Jha vs. State of Bihar & Anr.( 2005 (1) PLJR 287 ) submits that the grant of bail is not a relevant consideration in granting relief under section 205 of the Code. Learned counsel relying on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Amar Nath Jha vs. State of Bihar & Anr.( 2005 (1) PLJR 287 ) submits that the grant of bail is not a relevant consideration in granting relief under section 205 of the Code. Learned counsel submits that petitioners shall have real difficulty in personal appearance on each date fixed at the trial. As and when their personal appearance shall be required, the court may fix a date therefor whereafter they shall appear in the said proceeding. So far as day to day hearing of the trial is concerned they should be allowed to be represented by their counsel. In Amar Nath Jha (supra) this Court has held that grant of bail to the accused is not a bar in granting relief under section 205 of the Code. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that from the impugned order it appears that trial is underway and as such the petitioners may be required to appear in person at some stage of the proceeding. 5. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the submissions, in my view, the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, requires to be modified in the following term:- 6. Both the petitioners shall be allowed by the trial court to be represented through their counsel during day to day and as and when the court requires their personal appearance a specific date shall be fixed therefor whereafter both the petitioners shall appear in person before the court concerned failing which the trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.