IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5335 of 2010 ARUN PANDIT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 23.03.2010 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sikandara P.S. Case No. 177 of 2007 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the Dewar of the complainant who alleged that in the night of 25.6.2007 at about 1 o’clock while she was sleeping on Verandah of her house, the petitioner came there and forcibly committed rape on her and on that basis the complaint F.I.R. was instituted and the police conducted investigation. During investigation, the informant filed a protest petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation, final report was submitted against the petitioner but the learned C.J.M., on the basis of protest petition took cognizance of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Now the position is that the learned C.J.M. has found a prima facie case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner’s father who also happens to be the father-in-law of the complainant has retired and he has got Rs. 15 lakhs as his retiral benefit and for that money there is a family dispute between the petitioner and his brother i.e. complainant’s husband and in that context, a previous case stands instituted under complaint case No. 800C/2007 in which the petitioner is the witness. It is submitted that due to grudge of that case the instant case has been instituted falsely. - 2 - Be that as it may, but presently in view of the cognizance of offence as taken by the C.J.M. under Section 376 and direct allegation on the petitioner, I do not feel inclined to allow anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-