IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.5513 of 2010 CHHOTU DOM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8/ 23.07.2010 The petitioner had prayed for bail on which the criminal antecedent of the petitioner was called for from the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna. He reported that the petitioner was an accused in two other cases but the court found that the petitioner was already in custody before the institution of the case. The police officer was required to explain the report then the Sr. Officers reported that, in fact, since the petitioner’s parentage was not given in the order the confusion arose about his identity and, therefore, it was reported that the petitioner was accused in two other cases mentioned therein since there was another Chhotu Dom, who was accused in those cases. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna, was required to give specific reply as to whether the petitioner was accused in two cases mentioned in the report to which now there is clear assertion that the petitioner is not accused in those cases. In view of such, the explanation submitted by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna, is accepted. No further order need be passed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)