IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5417 of 2009 BIJULI MAHATO & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 22/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The submission is that the allegations under Section-376 vis-à-vis the minor girl is against co- accused Dadan Mahto alone. The petitioners are stated to have arrived after she had been physically molested. Learned counsel for the State points out that after the main accused was apprehended. Immediately after the occurrence the petitioners allegedly assaulted those who had held him, freed him and also assaulted the minor victim. The submission that there is no allegation under Section-376 of I.P.C. against the petitioners does not impress this Court to the extent of granting them the privilege of anticipatory bail in the nature of the entirety of allegations. Considerations for anticipatory bail and regular bail are entirely different. Merely because anticipatory bail may have been rejected that does not lead to an automatic conclusion that regular bail should also be rejected. 2 The application is rejected. Any application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner shall be considered by the court below on its own merits, without being prejudiced by the present order of rejection. Let the order be communicated to the court below by FAX at the cost of the petitioners. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)