IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.987 of 2010 1. NAND KISHORE CHOUDARY S/O SHRI HARIHARI CHAUDHARY R/O WARD NO. 24, NAGAR PARISHAD, SUPAUL, P.S. & DISTT. SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KOSHI RANGE, SAHARSA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUPAUL 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SUPAUL 7. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SUPAUL 8. THE POLICE INSPECTOR SUPAUL P.S., DISTT. SUPAUL 9. SRI BANARSI CHOUDHARY S/O LATE HARILAL CHOUDHARY R/O NANDLALPUR, P.S. KAHALGAON, DISTT. BHAGALPUR, THE THEN INSPECTOR POSTED AT SUPAUL P.S., DISTT. SUPAUL 10. THE DISTRICT ARMS OFFICER SUPAUL 11. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF SUPAUL P.S., DISTT. SUPAUL 12. RANJEET PRASAD S/O SHRI BASUDEO PRASAD R/O WARD NO. 12, DRUG CENTRE, THANA ROAD, P.S. & DISTT. SUPAUL For the petitioner:- Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Mr. Upendra Yadav, Advocates For respondents:- Mr. S.C.-13 ----------- 02. 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by his antecedents report dated 1.5.2008 prepared by the Police Inspector, Supaul Police Station. It states that he has antecedents of 12 cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of date there are only three cases pending against him. In some of the others he has been acquitted and in other 2 he has been made an accused on a confusion of name. Learned counsel for the State rightly submits that whether the cases in which acquittal has been granted shall form part of the antecedent or not shall depend on the nature of acquittal, whether it was on merits after contest or whether by grant of benefit of doubt etc. The Court is satisfied that the issue whether a person had been made accused on a confusion of name would also require an enquiry which is not possible in the present writ petition. Let the petitioner represent before the Superintendent of Police, Supaul with all materials on which he proposes to rely in light of the present discussion to enable the Superintendent of Police to pass a reasoned and considered order thereafter within a maximum period of four weeks from the date that the petitioner submits such application with all supporting materials before the Superintendent of Police. The application stands disposed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)