IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46569 of 2009 ----------- Sushil Kumar Singh, son of late Amrendra Prasad Singh, Resident of village Shibaiya, P.S. Singhia, District Samastipur. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Hira Prasad Singh, son of late Upendra Prasad Singh Resident of village +P.O.+ P.S. Singhia, District Samastipur ……Opposite Parties. ---------- 08/ 12.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (informant), learned counsel for opposite party no.2 (accused) and learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no.2, namely, Hira Prasad Singh vide order of this Court dated 18.06.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19869 of 2009. 3. The grounds taken by the petitioner (informant) is that opposite party no. 2 (accused) Hira Prasad Singh has got criminal antecedent as two criminal cases bearing Singhia P.S. Case No. 78 of 1996 as well as Complaint Case No. 200 of 2001 were pending against him, but at the time of arguments in Cr. Misc No. 19869 of 2009, it was claimed on his behalf that he had no criminal antecedent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner (informant) further submits that opposite party no.2 (accused) is a named accused, against whom even charge-sheet has been submitted and after obtaining anticipatory bail from this Court, he has also been 2 threatening the witnesses, which is apparent from the application of the witness (Annexure 6), filed before the Police. 5. So far criminal antecedent of opposite of party no.2(accused) is concerned, it is apparent from Annexure `C’ of the show cause that Complaint Case No. 200 of 2001 was compromised between the parties on 08.04.2009 and only thereafter the statement on behalf of opposite party no.2 was made on 18.06.2009 that he had no criminal antecedent. It is further apparent that opposite party no.2 has also been acquitted on 30.10.2009 in the aforesaid complaint case, which was with respect to some dispute regarding counting of votes in the election of Mukhiya. 6. So far Singhia P.S. Case No. 78 of 1996 is concerned, it is clear from Annexures `B’ series of the show cause, which is a letter from the Block Development Officer, Singhia, to the Officer-in-charge, Singhia dated 12.11.1996, on the basis of which the aforesaid case was instituted, that action against some persons including opposite party no.2 was recommended, who were taking part in Dharna-Satyagrah and lock up of Prakhand Karyalaya Singhia by Sarvadaliya Karyakarta, Singhia. Such cases are clearly with regard to political activities as both the parties are Politicians and such activities cannot be held to be criminal antecedent of such a nature, on the basis of which bail could be refused in any of the said cases. 7. So far the other points raised by the petitioner are concerned, this Court vide order dated 18.06.2009 passed in 3 Criminal Misc. No. 19869 of 2009 had taken into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and only thereafter had passed the said order. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the earlier order dated 18.06.2009 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 19869 of 2009. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. MPS/ . S. N. Hussain, J. )