IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29476 of 2010 RAJ THAKUR @ LALI THAKUR, S/o. late Dr. Rajendra Prasad Jarah, r/o. Mohalla Jalalpur, P.S. Sohsarai, District- Nalanda. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 06.10. 2010 The petitioner Raj Thakur @ Lali Thakur apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 470 (c ) /2008 under Section 376(G)/34 of I.P.C. The complainant Rina Devi alleged in her complaint that in the night of 1st May 2008 at 8.00- 9.00 p.m. when her husband had gone out in connection with his professional business for purchasing the articles the petitioner along with two other accused Kukku Thakur and Ranvir Thakur came to his house and they stated that they are the Mamera and Phuphera brothers of her husband and stated that they had come to meet her husband but since he was not in the house they wanted to stay in the house so that they would meet her husband after his arrival. The complainant said that since she was alone she express his hesitation in providing stay to the petitioner and other two accused but they insisted that they are the relatives of her husband she allowed 2 them to stay in a room. It was further alleged that at about 10-12, petitioner and other two accused entered into her room and two of them caught hold of her legs and hands and by gagging her mouth with her Sari the third one committed rape on her and in that tern all the three accused raped her one after another. She also alleged that on her cry her daughter, who was sleeping on the roof of the house, came down but the accused/petitioner and other two accused fled away and she also stated that on her cry other villagers has also came, before whom she had disclosed about the commission of crime at the hands of the petitioner and two others. She further alleged that she approached the police officials at the P.S. but the case was not taken, hence, she filed complaint before the learned C.J.M. On filing of complaint an enquiry was conducted. The complainant and her witnesses were examined during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It was on the basis of some contradictions in the statement of witnesses and some other circumstances 3 that the learned Magistrate holding enquiry did not find prima facie case and the complaint was dismissed. The complainant moved revision against the dismissal of the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the dismissal order of the complainant as passed by the learned Magistrate, thereafter on consideration of the materials cognizance of the offence was taken and the petitioner and other two accused to face trial for the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and other accused are the step brother and Mamera brothers of the complainant’s husband. He drew attention towards the statement of the complainant on her solemn affirmation, wherein she has stated that there was dispute and anguish with the accused from before. Learned counsel also submitted that it is not expected that in absence of her husband the complainant will allow strangers to live in the house. But the complainant had explained that the petitioner and other accused were the 4 Mamera and Phuphera brothers of her husband and that she had hesitated in permitting them to stay but on their insistence she had allowed them to stay. Learned counsel submitted that in this case only the complainant/victim says about the commission of rape on her and that the other witnesses are hearsay. It appears that the complainant’s daughter had said that on her cry when she came down the accused persons fled away on motorcycle and her mother stated to her that rape was committed on her. The other witnesses also say that when they came to the complainant’s house the complainant told them and the other witnesses learnt about the offence from her. Naturally in the circumstance the complainant will be the only witness when offence is said to have been committed in the situation as alleged. Learned counsel also submitted that the medical report does not mention any external injury on the person of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are admitted land dispute between the parties. It is also submitted 5 that co-accused Ranbir Thakur @ Ranbir Kumar @ Khaua, whose case is similarly situated has been allowed bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.07.10 under Cr. Misc. No. 22189 of 2010. Be that as it may, but in view of the facts and circumstances and the allegation, I do not feel it a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)