ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the orders dated 23.05.2013, 30.05.2013, 15.07.2013 and 3.9.2013, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners for modification in the orders granting bail and for securing their attendance, the same were passed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that a case was instituted being Pakur P.S. Case No. 141 of 2007 by the informant against her in-laws except her husband, in which the petitioners had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in various orders. 4. It has further been submitted that from 2007, the petitioners are regularly appearing before the learned trial court either personally or through their representatives but subsequently due to highhandedness on the part of brother of the informant, who is a police official in Dumka, steps were taken by the bailers to discharge them from their liability, pursuant to which, order dated 23.05.2013 was passed. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners are the residents of Kolkatta in the State of West Bengal and they are in difficulty on account of bailers having been discharged by the learned trial court. It has also been submitted that in terms of section 444 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners had also filed an application for accepting cash security or government security but the same was also rejected by the learned trial court. It has been submitted that since the petitioners have not been able to furnish sufficient security or surety, the petitioners could not appear resulting in issuance of warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and processes under section 83 Cr.P.C.. It has been submitted that none of the orders which were passed subsequent to the order dated 23.05.2013 for securing attendance of the petitioners show subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. It has been submitted that evidence has been closed and the case has been fixed for argument and therefore if the orders granting bail are modified by allowing them to furnish government security or cash security, the petitioners shall strictly adhere to the same and also take steps so that the trial is not delayed. 5. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned A.P.P., has submitted that in terms of section 444 Cr.P.C., the bailers can be discharged but under section 445 Cr.P.C., there is an alternative remedy of depositing cash security or government security. 5. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned A.P.P., has submitted that in terms of section 444 Cr.P.C., the bailers can be discharged but under section 445 Cr.P.C., there is an alternative remedy of depositing cash security or government security. Learned A.P.P. submits that the impugned orders were passed in the year 2013 and since the petitioners have approached this Court after a considerable delay, no interference should be caused to the said orders. 6. It appears from one of the impugned orders dated 23.5.2013 that while allowing the application filed by the petitioners under section 444 the prayer made by the petitioners to deposit cash or K.Y.P. or N.I.S.C. had been refused. It has been submitted that the petitioners are residing outside State of Jharkhand and in absence of the bailers, the petitioners have been precluded from appearing before the learned trial court on the dates fixed leading to issuance of various processes for securing their attendance. In such exceptional circumstances, when the bailers filed an application by virtue of section 444 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court should have accepted the plea of the petitioners for deposit of cash security or any other government security as has been stated by them. In such circumstances, therefore, the impugned order dated 23.05.2013 refusing to accept deposit of cash or government security is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to the learned trial court to take necessary security from the petitioners. 7. The subsequent orders dated 30.05.2013, 15.07.2013 and 3.9.2013, by which non bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. and process under section 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued, are all non speaking orders, which do not reflect subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. 8. As a consequence to the discussions made herein above, this application is allowed by quashing the orders dated 30.05.2013, 15.07.2013 and 3.9.2013, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in Pakur P.S. Case No. 141 of 2007. 9. So far as order dated 23.05.2013, as has been indicated above, the learned trial court shall take necessary security like government security from the petitioners and they shall remain on previous bail, which have been granted. Learned trial court is further directed to conclude the trial within a period of 1 month from the date a copy of this order is received. 10. This application stands disposed of. 11. Learned trial court is further directed to conclude the trial within a period of 1 month from the date a copy of this order is received. 10. This application stands disposed of. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent through Fax. Application disposed of.