IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16887 of 2010 RAMANAND YADAV, SON OF PARMANAND YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAPAR, POLICE STATION GOPALPUR (RANGRA), DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SIYA SHARAN YADAV, SON OF LATE MOTI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAPAR, POLICE STATION GOPALPUR (RANGRA), DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. …..Opposite Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey (Adv.) For the State : APP. ----------- 04/ 29.09.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. The petitioner has come for cancellation of bail granted to O.P. No. 2 on 09.05.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 9460 of 2008. Primary submission of the petitioner is that the bail was granted to the O.P. No. 2 which was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The liberty was granted to the petitioner that he may apply for cancellation of bail before the High Court or any other appropriate forum in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s). 8223 of 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Opposite Party No. 2 bears criminal antecedent and despite that he has been granted bail. There was possibility that the 2 O.P. No. 2 may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Further submission is that the bail was granted due to wrong submission of the O.P. No. 2 that he bears fair antecedent. While granting bail to Opposite Party No.2 Siya Sharan Yadav on 09.05.2010, submissions were noted and this submission has not been noted that the O.P. No. 2 is a man of fair antecedent. This is not a case of concealment and grounds for grant of bail stands on different footing than the grounds for cancellation of bail. The bail was granted considering the fact that the occurrence was of 30th May, 2007 and was reported on 05.06.2007. According to the informant, the informant knew about the occurrence on 02.06.2007. The matter was reported after three days and the delay was found to be unexplained. This was one of the grounds for grant of bail. In this case there is no concealment of the fact, no fraud was committed on the part of the Opposite Party No. 2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, 3 the order of granting of bail needs no interference. So, prayer for cancellation of bail is accordingly rejected. kksinha/- (Shyam kishore Sharma, J.)