IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2009 Chandeshwar Ram, son of Sri Kishun Ram, resident of village- Navtoli, P.S.- Khutauna, District- Madhubani. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shankar Prasad Ram, son is not known, the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Khutauna, P.S. Khutauna, District- Madhubani. .. Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 02.08.2011 The informant- petitioner has filed this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 20.5.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani in A. B. P. No. 353 of 2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. It appears that on written complaint of petitioner, Khutauna P. S. Case No. 07 of 2009, G. R. No. 117 of 2009 was instituted against the accused including the opposite party no. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120(B)/34 I.P.C. It is submitted that after investigation the police has found the case to be true against the accused. He has also 2 referred the supervision note of SDPO, Phulparas, vide Memo No. 302/09 dated 2.4.2009 in which the involvement of the opposite party no. 2, Shankar Prasad Ram, the then Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Khutauna has been found. The main contention of the petitioner is that opposite party no. 2 did not deserve anticipatory bail but the learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail vide impugned order dated 20.5.2009. Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears from the impugned order that the petitioner has made allegation vide complaint case no. 221 of 2008 which was dismissed by the learned A.C.J.M, Jhanjharpur on 2.6.2008 and then he has filed this case on similar grounds. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Sessions Judge ordered that in the event of arrest or surrender, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of 3 Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each with condition as laid dawn under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)