IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41620 of 2010 CHULHAI SAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 26.03.2011 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is alleged to have enticed the married daughter and niece of the informant. The petitioner is stated to be their neighbour. The victims in their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have denied to attribute any act of enticement against the petitioner to invoke Section 366/34 IPC. The parties have settled the matter amongst themselves. The impugned order of rejection at paragraph 5 notices that the petitioner has serious antecedents under Section 302 IPC and under the NDPS Act. Only for the reason of his antecedent the Court is not persuaded to grant him the privilege of anticipatory bail. This application is rejected. Any application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner shall have to be considered by the court below on its own merit in light of the aforesaid submissions without being prejudiced by the present order. Snkumar/ (Navin Sinha,J.)