JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gopal Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel for the State. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 04.03.2020 whereby the court below has issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner by cancelling the bail bond. The petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in B.A. No. 4753 of 2019. The bail application of the petitioner was allowed by order dated 27.05.2019 with condition that the petitioner would appear on each and every date before the learned court below and if he would not appear even on a single date, the bail bond of the petitioner will be cancelled by the learned court below and both the bailors will be close relative of the petitioner, with the aforesaid rider, the bail application of the petitioner was allowed. On 04.03.2020, the bail application of the petitioner was cancelled in view of the order of this Court passed in B.A. No. 4753 of 2019. 4. Mr. Gopal Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is cutting of the order dated 04.03.2020 and the order has been again passed in the next page and in that view of the matter the petitioner may kindly be allowed to appear before the court below and furnish the fresh bail bond. He also submits that during the Corona-period liberty and exemption was there by the order of the Court. 5. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the order is of 04.03.2020 and at that time in Jharkhand such order was not there as the lock-down was started in the last part of March, 2020. She submits that there may be some mistake in passing the order and when learned court found that the order of the Hon’ble Court was there to appear physically, then that order has been passed and that there is no illegality. 6. She submits that there may be some mistake in passing the order and when learned court found that the order of the Hon’ble Court was there to appear physically, then that order has been passed and that there is no illegality. 6. I have gone through the order dated 27.05.2019 passed in B.A. No. 4753 of 2019 and finds that the condition precedent was that the petitioner will appear on each and every date in the court below. The court below considering that order has cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner as the petitioner has not appeared on that day. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not being accepted by the Court with regard to cutting of the order as it might have happened due to some error and it was not in the mind of the Court. In such condition and in view of this fact, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not accepted by the Court. The condition was there and he was required to comply, moreover, at that time, lock-down in light of Covid-19 was not there as the order was dated 04.03.2020 and in Jharkhand lock-down started in the last part of March, 2020. 7. Accordingly, no relief can be extended to the petitioner, and the quashing application is dismissed. 8. The petitioner may file a fresh petition before the court below that will be decided on its own merit by the court below.