IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26739 of 2009 BIPIN KUMAR CHAUDHARY SON OF LATE BHAGBAT CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINDHIA,P.S.K.NAGAR,DISTT.PURNEA Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.CHATURI HEMBRAM SON OF LATE DINA HEMBRAM 3.HOPAN MURMUR SON OF LATE PRITHWI MURMUR 4.GHUITAR MURMUR SON OF LATE PRITHWI MURMUR 5.PRADHAN CHOUREY SON OF LATE DOMAN CHOUREY 6.MNAJAR CHOUREY @ BAIDNATH CHOUREY SON OF LATE DOMAN CHOUREY 7.DHENA MURMUR SON OF LATE PRITHWI MURMUR 8.BARKU HEMBRAM SON OF CHATURI HEMBRAM 9.PRITHWI HEMBRAM SON OF LATE DINA HEMBRAM 10.MUNSHI MURMUR @ MUNSHI LAL MURMUR SON OF SHAMBHU MURMUR ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SINGHIA PIRTHWI TOLA, P.S.K.NAGAR(CHAMPAR NAGAR),DISTT.PURNEA ----- 04/ 07.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that opposite party nos. 2 to 10, named above, have obtained anticipatory bail on 3.2.2009 Vide Cr.Misc.No.47060 of 2008 on the basis of wrong submission regarding their antecedents as in the petition it was mentioned that the petitioners had no criminal antecedent. In fact, they are involved in criminal cases. At the time of grant of bail, the consideration was that there was dispute on account of a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act for declaration of Bataidari right against the mother of the complainant. That was the primary 2 consideration on which anticipatory bail was granted to opposite party nos. 2 to 10 in a complaint case. As such, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)