ORDER : N. Santosh Hegde, J. This application is being entertained on a statement made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that they have surrendered to the bail. 2. This Court as per its order dated 3-11-2004 Arvind Mohan Johri v. State of U.P., (2005) 4 SCC 640 granted bail to the applicants because of the assurance given by the applicants that the entire amount due to the creditors will be made available for distribution amongst them. Subsequently it was found that assurance was not correct because the assets that were shown to this Court were disputed and were not available for distribution. It is based on that fact by our order dated 4-5-2005 Arvind Mohan Johri v. State of U.P., (2005) 4 SCC 634 we cancelled the grant of bail earlier granted. 3. By this application the applicant prays that his right to move any fresh application for bail on other grounds if any should not be foreclosed. He submits that what is stated in the order dated 4-5-2005 Arvind Mohan Johri v. State of U.P., (2005) 4 SCC 634 should not be a ground to refuse bail if in law he is otherwise entitled to. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent. We think it appropriate that a modification in our order dated 4-5-2005 Arvind Mohan Johri v. State of U.P., (2005) 4 SCC 634 is necessary. Therefore, we clarify that while cancelling the bail on 4-5-2005 Arvind Mohan Johri v. State of U.P., (2005) 4 SCC 634 , we have confined our attention only to the assurance given by the applicants and not to any other fact, therefore if the applicants are entitled to make any application for grant of bail on any other grounds available to them in law the same is not foreclosed by our order dated 4-5-2005 Arvind Mohan Johri v. State of U.P., (2005) 4 SCC 634 . If any further application for bail is made the same will be decided on merits of that application.