IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10618 of 2009 PRABHA DEVI W/O LATE SAMBHU CHAUDHARY,R/O VILLAGE- MAHANTH MANIYARY, P.S.- MANIYARY, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJ KUMAR SHARMA 3. PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA BOTH SONS OF MOHAN SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAHANTH MANIYARY, P.S.- MANIYARY, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 5 07/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner is aggrieved on account of grant of anticipatory bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have made wrong submissions because they have mentioned in the petition that their antecedent are clean but the fact is that they were accused in several criminal cases. It has also been submitted that the accused persons are threatening the informant for which a petition has been filed before the Superintendent of Police. Perusal of the order granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 shows that the antecedent of the accused persons was not taken into account. Some other circumstances were taken into 2 account and considering those facts the order was passed. So I am of the view that this is not a case of suppression. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has denied the factum of threatening made to the informant by opposite party nos. 2 and 3. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is observed that if the petitioner/informant or witnesses receive any threatening then she/they may approach the trial court which will take remedial steps. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)