IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34156 of 2010 NAVEEN KUMAR NIRALA Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sushmita Nischal @ Sikku Kumari @ Sinku Kumari ------ 6/ 12.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposites. On merit Opposite Party no.2 is entitled for bail is not doubted rather an interim relief in her favour vide order dated 10.02.2010 in Cr. Revision No. 34 of 2010 is referred that warrant of arrest of Opposite Party No.2 was stayed by the Sessions Judge and she was not in need of anticipatory bail. Above Criminal Revision is now withdrawn but only after passing of order dated 20.05.2010 by which petitioner has been allowed bail. In between the order dated 10.02.2010 in Cr. Rev. No. 34 of 2010 and 20.05.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 16019 of 2010 Opposite Party No.2’s anticipatory bail is refused by Sessions Judge. Rejection order is also not mentioning relief in favour of opposite party no.2 which was for a limited period. That should not be suppressed but discussed circumstances are not so serious that anticipatory bail granted in favour of Opposite Party No.2 may be cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application for cancellation of bail is dismissed. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)