IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21722 of 2010 1. VIJAY YADAV, son of Shri Janku Yadav 2. Dharmendra Yadav, son of Binod Yadav Both are resident of village- Gorawan, Police Station- Silao, District- Nalanda Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---------- 2. 16.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and State. Petitioners are specifically alleged for committing rape upon the victim and that is the ground for their involvement in offence of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Allegation is doubted and the ground is that victim is set up by one Sunil Singh who was the then Mukhiya defeated petitioner no. 1, his conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was informed to election commission. Action was also taken and he was removed from the post of Mukhiya. This information was given to him through the process possible as its copy of hang on his door while he was found evading to accept the same. Witnesses are said interested to him and at present also it is said that he has every interests in proceeding of the Case. It is said that complaint is stating about giving no information of the incident to Mukhiya rather she is denying to identify him while her witness enquiry witness no. 3 is stating information to the Mukhiya, Sunil Singh. If really Mukhiya was informed no question arise about not for taking 2 the case and lodging the F.I.R. by the concerned Police Station. Complaint is lodged two days after the incident. No prompt step was taken to examine the witness though in course of enquiry she is examined but save and except observation of the doctor that commitment of rape may not be ruled out, nothing positive is given about commitment of rape. According to the learned counsel there was no sign of injury nor any examination of semen was possible after lapse of long period when she was examined. Discussed circumstances if entitle the applicant for bail can be considered in regular side, otherwise allegation is about commitment of offence under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The application for anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not maintainable. However, petitioners are directed to surrender and pray for regular bail which shall be decided on its own merits. Considering all the above discussed circumstances, without being prejudiced by this rejected order. Anand Kr. ( Mandhata Singh, J.)