IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23862 of 2008 GANESHI RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 30.09.2008 The F.I.R. was initially lodged under sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently sections 394 and 376(2) (G) of the Indian Penal Code was also added. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. Further submission is that the date of the offence is 16.03.2007 and that after F.I.R. the further statement of the informant was recorded on 04.04.2007 as in paragraph No 17 wherein the informant alleged the offence of rape against co -accused Manohar Rai, Ganauri Rajak and Mantu Rai and that petitioner’s name does not find place in that statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph no.18 of the case diary the statement of informant’s husband was also recorded on 04.04.2007 and he also gave similar statement not naming the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that subsequently, it was on 18.04.2007 that the informant wrote some petition to District Magistrate wherein the informant also named the petitioner but that too was in connection with the offence of theft. Learned counsel for the petitioner continues to submit that the petitioner is in custody since 07.12.2007, but he has not been put on T.I.P. nor there is any recovery of incriminating material from his possession. - 2 - Mr. S.R. Haque, the learned Addl. P. P. does not point out any other specific material against the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, namely, Ganeshi Rai is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge III, Barh, Patna, in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 35 of 2007, in Sessions Trial No. 317 of 2008. Sym (C.M. Prasad, J.)